Evolution vs Creationism...what do you believe?

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I believe in Evolution. All people seem to need explanations to questions they cannot answer and so in our day religion has proclaimed answers such as, the earth is 10,000 yrs old, A sole creator is responsible, and the earth was formed in 7 days. Institutions are based on those premises and constant reinforcement prevents new ideas from reaching some minds.

I had a funny experience at Christmas this yr. I am an atheist, but my background has been trained in Christianity. I love Christmas, and do believe in giving to others. I met a young girl, age 20, who was putting herself through school, and was bemoaning the fact she needed rent for the next term, and was working during her Christmas vacation, where I was staying. I decided to give her 100.00. toward her rent. To me, it was the right Christmas gift to a stranger. She accepted, and my first clue to her background was that she kept calling me a blessing.

So, I finally asked what school she was going to, and she replied Liberty University in VirginiA. MY brain spun as I recalled what kind of a Univ it was. I was supporting a fundamentalist Univ. She did tell me that they taught both at the college(the first thing I asked). So, the atheist gave to the fundamentalist. I had a good laugh at myself.

By the way, she is a wonderful girl. I have no regrets.

Annette

 

[missy]

Hi,

I believe in Evolution. All people seem to need explanations to questions they cannot answer and so in our day religion has proclaimed answers such as, the earth is 10,000 yrs old, A sole creator is responsible, and the earth was formed in 7 days. Institutions are based on those premises and constant reinforcement prevents new ideas from reaching some minds.

I had a funny experience at Christmas this yr. I am an atheist, but my background has been trained in Christianity. I love Christmas, and do believe in giving to others. I met a young girl, age 20, who was putting herself through school, and was bemoaning the fact she needed rent for the next term, and was working during her Christmas vacation, where I was staying. I decided to give her 100.00. toward her rent. To me, it was the right Christmas gift to a stranger. She accepted, and my first clue to her background was that she kept calling me a blessing.

So, I finally asked what school she was going to, and she replied Liberty University in VirginiA. MY brain spun as I recalled what kind of a Univ it was. I was supporting a fundamentalist Univ. She did tell me that they taught both at the college(the first thing I asked). So, the atheist gave to the fundamentalist. I had a good laugh at myself.

By the way, she is a wonderful girl. I have no regrets.

Annette

Good for you Annette. One thing I do is not judge someone *because* they are religious. There are far more important characteristics to use to realize *who* someone is. There are wonderful religious individuals and wonderful non religious individuals and horrible people in both groups.

 

[kenny]

Kenny, I agree. We don't know. ... I want to know because I'm curious. Just like my kitties. I also am aware of the saying about curiosity. Doesn't stop me though from wanting to know. I realize we don't have the answers and probably won't have them during our lifetime but in the meantime I will enjoy trying to figure things out.

I too am curious and very much want to know every answer to every question one could think up.

I'm not saying don't be curious.
I'm saying nobody should accept made-up stuff to be answers or to be 'true'.
Doing so is turning off the critical thinking function of our minds ... a very dangerous and slippery slope.

That billions of people do this does not make it okay.
In fact, I find it to be the most frightening and divisive creation of humans.

We just don't have answers for lots of stuff.

 

[missy]

Kenny, I agree. We don't know. ... I want to know because I'm curious. Just like my kitties. I also am aware of the saying about curiosity. Doesn't stop me though from wanting to know. I realize we don't have the answers and probably won't have them during our lifetime but in the meantime I will enjoy trying to figure things out.

I too am curious and want to know every answer to every question one could think up.

I'm not saying don't be curious.
I'm saying nobody should accept made-up stuff to be answers or to be 'true'.
Doing so is turning off the critical thinking function of our minds ... a very dangerous and slippery slope.

That billions of people do this does not make it okay.
In fact, I find it to be the most frightening and divisive creation of humans.

We just don't have answers for lots of stuff.

Agree completely.

 

[BeekeeperBetty]

I'm a Christian and believe in evolution. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the Catholic Church says that there isn't anything in scripture that tells us not to believe in evolution. And, if you look at the first creation story, it does follow what we currently think happened fairly closely, with a few minor differences. The second creation story is not meant to be taken literally, but as a story outlining God's personal relationship with us. He walks with us in the garden, he cares for us and is literally there with us, but when we sin (ie., eat the fruit) that distances us from God. That's more of a Catholic perspective, anyway. Protestants, which heavily influences US culture, believe in sola scriptura, that the bible is the literal word of God and should be taken literally. All of it. And that's where the disbelief in evolution comes in.

 

[VRBeauty]

Protestants, which heavily influences US culture, believe in sola scriptura, that the bible is the literal word of God and should be taken literally. All of it. And that's where the disbelief in evolution comes in.

That's not true of all Protestants or of all Protestant denominations, though it is true of many (possibly all?) fundamentalist faiths.

As for me, I do think that evolution is part of the story but I'm not sure it's all of the story.

 

[missy]

I'm a Christian and believe in evolution. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the Catholic Church says that there isn't anything in scripture that tells us not to believe in evolution. And, if you look at the first creation story, it does follow what we currently think happened fairly closely, with a few minor differences. The second creation story is not meant to be taken literally, but as a story outlining God's personal relationship with us. He walks with us in the garden, he cares for us and is literally there with us, but when we sin (ie., eat the fruit) that distances us from God. That's more of a Catholic perspective, anyway. Protestants, which heavily influences US culture, believe in sola scriptura, that the bible is the literal word of God and should be taken literally. All of it. And that's where the disbelief in evolution comes in.

Interesting Betty. You are a practicing Christian so I find your thoughts re animals and their rights very thought provoking. Didn't Jesus ask for people to treat animals kindly? Jesus told human beings to be kind to the weak and helpless and in comparison to human beings, animals are often weak and helpless and therefore Christians should therefore show compassion to animals. "It is a great good to take responsibility for the welfare of others, including animals. "

http://www.humanesociety.org/about/departments/faith/francis_files/st_francis_of_assisi.html

Just wondering because in another thread you posted you "don't care a whit about animals".

Protestants, which heavily influences US culture, believe in sola scriptura, that the bible is the literal word of God and should be taken literally. All of it. And that's where the disbelief in evolution comes in.

That's not true of all Protestants or of all Protestant denominations, though it is true of many (possibly all?) fundamentalist faiths.

As for me, I do think that evolution is part of the story but I'm not sure it's all of the story.

Thanks VR. That's what I thought too.

 

[BeekeeperBetty]

That is not what I said about animals at all. I said it doesn't matter as far as my presidential vote goes. I've been busy because spring is busy here replacing trees in our orchard that didn't make it, bee and mite checks in the apiary and planting our garden, and I haven't had time to respond to that thread but I feel very upset that you think I hate animals because my presidential vote isn't based on animal rights.

And of course not every Protestant denomination believes the same thing, but sola scriptura is one major difference between Protestants and Catholics.

 

[hay joe]

"both, that they are not mutually exclusive.
I believe that evolution happens because it was created that way."
Thanks Karl

 

[rainwood]

I believe creationists have not yet evolved sufficiently!

 

[marcy]

I voted that I believe in evolution. I will have to read the book you mentioned, Missy. It sounds interesting.

 

[missy]

That is not what I said about animals at all. I said it doesn't matter as far as my presidential vote goes. I've been busy because spring is busy here replacing trees in our orchard that didn't make it, bee and mite checks in the apiary and planting our garden, and I haven't had time to respond to that thread but I feel very upset that you think I hate animals because my presidential vote isn't based on animal rights.

And of course not every Protestant denomination believes the same thing, but sola scriptura is one major difference between Protestants and Catholics.

Thanks for clarifying Betty, I guess the way you wrote it in that thread was very harsh IMO and insensitive regarding animals and their welfare. While I don't think it is the most important consideration when deciding the best candidate for president we are not operating in a vacuum so yes it is still (IMO) a factor to be considered. And whether or not you agree or are or are not an animal lover it's just the way you said it that I felt was (and others did too) unnecessarily inflammatory.

 

[missy]

I believe creationists have not yet evolved sufficiently!

I voted that I believe in evolution. I will have to read the book you mentioned, Missy. It sounds interesting.

I hope you enjoy it Marcy.

"both, that they are not mutually exclusive.
I believe that evolution happens because it was created that way."
Thanks Karl

Interesting, thanks Hay Joe and I agree they are not mutually exclusive. How old do you think the world is?

 

[Jambalaya]

I'm going through a really busy patch which is why I'm not on PS as much. I did read all of Missy's original post, but don't have time to read every response - got to go out and am still in pajamas!

However, I did read the part about Dawkins' small doubt because we don't know how/why it all started, and I wanted to bring up something which isn't exactly about the topic but I think could be related. To be clear: I do believe in evolution - you can see evolution in fossilized specimens evolving through time. But we don't know how and why it all started and what else there is about the universe that we don't know - and also why we evolved. How do cells know what to do and in what order, and when to do it? Where did cell number 1 come from?

In a nutshell: Quantum physics tells us that there is something fundamental about the universe that we don't understand. Quantum experiments have been carried out by every top institution in the world and in every instance they have returned the same results, meaning that theories about the universe inferred by quantum physics are the most reliable, watertight theories about our world that we've ever seen. However, what they imply is so weird that we can't grasp it. I started reading a book for the layperson about this, published by Oxford University Press (so a reliable publisher) but even the layperson book was too complex for me because the theories are so off-the-wall. The book is titled "Quantum Enigma."

As far as I could make out, it's something about 1) there being another dimension to the universe that we can't imagine; 2) that the way the world looks to us is created by our physical bodies, and so the world may not be as we see it at all (for example, the sky looks blue but it's possible for the sky to look red to human eyes, if some damage occurs in a certain part of the brain. So is the sky really blue or does it just look that way to the physical set-up of the human eye?)

On that note, the double-slit experiment is totally weird. This is very simplified, but wave particles appear to behave differently when watched by human eyes from when they are watched by, say, a camera. When watched by us they go through one slit but they actually go through two slits, or the other way round, I can't remember. Like I said, this is really complex. Then there's the Hut Couple experiment, where there's a couple and two huts, and the couple is in whichever hut you expect them to be in - oh, believe me, it's way more complicated than that, I'm crap at explaining this stuff.

But the quantum physics experiments tell us - apparently indubitably because they've proved so consistent - that what we see as our world is limited to what the physical make-up of human beings is capable of perceiving, and that there's much, much more to the universe than we know. I was speaking with a young physicist and he knew exactly what I was talking about - anybody who studies physics knows that physics tells us there is this great remaining mystery about the universe that we can't seem to grasp yet. He said that whoever figures it out will go down in history as being greater than Darwin, Einstein, and any of the other great thinkers.

I imagine it's quantum physics that gives Dawkins his doubt. Whatever quantum physics is telling us about the universe that we can't grasp, perhaps it's the missing piece to all this - the remaining questions about how it all started. I might sound like an evolutionist but the physics leaves room for all possibilities, including that of an over-arching entity, since we can't grasp this remaining mystery about the universe yet. Many people who have had near-death experiences are absolutely convinced that they have experienced another dimension and an over-arching benign entity. Intriguingly, many accounts speak of a collapse of time and space, where the person could be anywhere they chose to be at that moment and where they seemed to have 360-degree vision - that they seemed to be everywhere, at the same time. I think there is some support for this possibility in quantum physics, too.

So perhaps our human perceptions of space and time are limited by what we are capable of perceiving. It's possible that both evolution and the presence of a god-like entity exist. (I did say that what quantum physics implies is very weird!) My friend who studied it at college told me that the professor told his students to leave their common sense at the door before class! The point is that we have no idea how and why it all started, and if there really is a god-like presence or not, and quantum physics is strongly telling us just how much we don't know about the universe.

I'd recommend "The Quantum Enigma" by Oxford University Press. I faltered but I'm going to try to read it again.

 

[Karl_K]

How old do you think the world is?

no one knows and there are a lot of unknowns and unanswered questions.
While I consider it very interesting, I do not consider it to be very important to me personally.
There is a lot of junk science, carbon dating being one of the bigger ones.
Before anyone gets up in arms about that do the research and you will be surprised if you have not kept up on it.

 

[december-fire]

That is not what I said about animals at all. I said it doesn't matter as far as my presidential vote goes. I've been busy because spring is busy here replacing trees in our orchard that didn't make it, bee and mite checks in the apiary and planting our garden, and I haven't had time to respond to that thread but I feel very upset that you think I hate animals because my presidential vote isn't based on animal rights.

And of course not every Protestant denomination believes the same thing, but sola scriptura is one major difference between Protestants and Catholics.

Thanks for clarifying Betty, I guess the way you wrote it in that thread was very harsh IMO and insensitive regarding animals and their welfare. While I don't think it is the most important consideration when deciding the best candidate for president we are not operating in a vacuum so yes it is still (IMO) a factor to be considered. And whether or not you agree or are or are not an animal lover it's just the way you said it that I felt was (and others did too) unnecessarily inflammatory.

Missy,

When I read your response to BeekeeperBetty's comment in the other thread, my reaction was that you had ignored her qualifying phrase 'during a Presidential election'. I certainly didn't interpret her comment to imply that she doesn't care for or respect animals. With all due respect, Missy, because you seem like a very caring person, it was your response, not BeekeeperBetty's, that seemed harsh and inflammatory to me. I'm not going to change my opinion of you, as being a caring and thoughtful person, based on one post. And I hope I'm not offending you with my comments now.

What I'm trying to say is that BeekeeperBetty wrote one sentence in response to a thread about a particular situation (Presidential election) and included a qualifying phrase that specified her opinion was during such a situation.

If a thread asks a 'yes' or 'no' question or, as in this thread, an option to pick 'A' or 'B', I think it would be nice to let people response honestly without being subjected to a harsh blanket statement. But, that's me being an idealist. The reality is that people can write whatever they want.

BeekeeperBetty hasn't posted much. I don't know her and I hope she doesn't think I feel she needs protection or someone to stand up for her. All I'm trying to say is that I was reluctant to post when I first joined PS (and at times I still am, actually), because a few words in a post can be easily misunderstood and lack facial expressions and tone to help clarify one's opinion.

Missy, I still think you're thoughtful and considerate.

BeekeeperBetty, please know that at least one person didn't interpret your words to reflect how you feel about animals.

I've always loved animals.

And (most) people.

And think both should be treated with consideration and respect.

I'm Canadian, so not familiar with the US political system, but animal rights/treatment would factor higher on my list for a political position at a much lower level - where decisions are being made and, also, the politician making them can be more accessible.

Hugs to you both!

 

[Matata]

But the quantum physics experiments tell us - apparently indubitably because they've proved so consistent - that what we see as our world is limited to what the physical make-up of human beings is capable of perceiving, and that there's much, much more to the universe than we know.

The bolded above reminded me of a Twilight Zone episode that I saw when I was very young and which got me interested in physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKbylBQ0igk

 

[Jambalaya]

But the quantum physics experiments tell us - apparently indubitably because they've proved so consistent - that what we see as our world is limited to what the physical make-up of human beings is capable of perceiving, and that there's much, much more to the universe than we know.

The bolded above reminded me of a Twilight Zone episode that I saw when I was very young and which got me interested in physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKbylBQ0igk

Just watched it! Very interesting. Obviously someone making the show was thinking about how the universe might work! It's funny how we are no closer today than we were in 1985 to understanding the great mysteries of the universe.

You'd think, really, that there would be more of a collective "who-knows" attitude across humanity about these matters, instead of so many people being incredibly sure one way or the other about issues such as creation/evolution and god/no god. I suppose it's only when you start reading around the topic that you realize how much we don't know.

 

[missy]

December Fire- when Betty wrote she didn't " care a whit about animals... " it sounded flippant and yes from my point of view insensitive and harsh. Many others wrote they didn't put animal concerns high on the list when considering who to vote for in the Presidential election and their responses were not mean or harsh or insensitive IMO. In contrast her comment about not caring a whit felt to me to be a mean comment. And when asked to elaborate she disappeared from the thread.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I have not changed mine. I don't dislike you and in fact I think you are a very nice person from your posts and threads and I don't dislike Betty either. Her comment rubbed me the wrong way and I responded to it. I appreciate the nice things you wrote about me and I also appreciate you taking the time to comment just to help me see a different perspective. I acknowledge your POV but the feeling I got from what she wrote in the other thread and then disappeared ignoring Monnie's and my questions to her felt like (to me) her comments were flippant and insensitive. I am a very intuitive person and I usually am right about why I feel the way I feel. I am not perfect however and certainly there is a chance I could be mistaken but as I wrote I just responded to her comments with my thoughts and how her comment made me feel.

I'm with you. Animal rights should not be unimportant to anyone but we cannot control how other people think or their feelings but I certainly have the right to share how those comments make me feel. I am nothing if not honest and I respond to posts with my true thoughts and feelings.

Jambalaya thank you for the links and interesting comments. I will read it over more carefully when I have more time. Looking forward to it.

Matata, thank you for the twilight zone link. Looking forward to checking it out.

 

[ckrickett]

I'm a Christian and believe in evolution. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the Catholic Church says that there isn't anything in scripture that tells us not to believe in evolution. And, if you look at the first creation story, it does follow what we currently think happened fairly closely, with a few minor differences. The second creation story is not meant to be taken literally, but as a story outlining God's personal relationship with us. He walks with us in the garden, he cares for us and is literally there with us, but when we sin (ie., eat the fruit) that distances us from God. That's more of a Catholic perspective, anyway. Protestants, which heavily influences US culture, believe in sola scriptura, that the bible is the literal word of God and should be taken literally. All of it. And that's where the disbelief in evolution comes in.

This sums it up for me as well.

 

[december-fire]

Hi Missy,

Just got back after being out all day.

I appreciate your honesty and, of course, we all have our own opinions and (thankfully!) freedom of speech. My impression is that you are very passionate about your opinions and love of animals. That's great!

If someone wrote 'I don't care about animals.' without any qualifiers, I would be a bit surprised. Sadly, there are animal abusers in the world. But I think most people have a level of concern for animals. I suspect that if a Presidential candidate was known to be an animal abuser, there would be a huge public outcry (and rightly so).

I'm not sure I understand your comment about BeekeeperBetty 'disappearing' and not responding to questions. I haven't gone back to that thread to read subsequent posts. Perhaps I should and then I'd understand.

But I wouldn't want someone to think I was ignoring them if they posted a question for me and I didn't respond. I might not have seen their question, I might have been busy with other things, or I might have felt unable/unwilling to articulate a response.

BeekeeperBetty said she was 'very upset' that you thought she hated animals. Not a response I would expect from someone if they actually did hate animals. Given her discussion about her activities (orchard, apiary), I would suspect she is a busy lady, with a love for and knowledge of nature and animals. Unless she is being forced against her will to perform duties she despises!

BeekeeperBetty,
If you are a victim of forced labour dealing with nature and bees and hating every minute of it, please send your location and I'll arrange a clandestine rescue op!

By the way, thank you for contributing to the bee population. Bees play a vital role that, unfortunately, isn't always recognized and protected.

Now I'm going to tiptoe away before someone makes me do 20 pushups for having posted twice without responding to the topic!

Hugs to you both!

 

[katharath]

Great topic missy, and I am one who trusts the scientific evidence that so firmly points to evolution

ETA - and I voted!

 

[AprilBaby]

both, that they are not mutually exclusive.
I believe that evolution happens because it was created that way.
Evolution happens but there is 0 evidence that man evolved from apes(that pesky missing link that anyone who studies it will quickly find out about) and I believe that man was created as man.
That the animals and man and even plants are related because they were designed using the same building blocks and creator.
Without getting too far into religion that is about all I can say.

Karl says beautifully what I believe. Thanks sir!

 

[missy]

Hi Missy,

snip....
Now I'm going to tiptoe away before someone makes me do 20 pushups for having posted twice without responding to the topic!

Enquiring minds want to know December Fire ...yes or no to Evolution? As you pointed out you posted twice without referring to the topic of the thread. Please be so kind as to do share thoughts on this very interesting topic if you don't mind.

Great topic missy, and I am one who trusts the scientific evidence that so firmly points to evolution

ETA - and I voted!

Thank you katarath. And thank you for also voting in the poll. Much appreciated.

Thanks April Baby. Very interesting. A number of you have agreed with Karl's comments and I will repost for clarity's sake.

both, that they are not mutually exclusive.
I believe that evolution happens because it was created that way.
Evolution happens but there is 0 evidence that man evolved from apes(that pesky missing link that anyone who studies it will quickly find out about) andI believe that man was created as man.
That the animals and man and even plants are related because they were designed using the same building blocks and creator.
Without getting too far into religion that is about all I can say.

I believe that evolution does *not* disprove G-d's existence. In fact I think one can discuss evolution without discussing religion as they are separate issues IMO. Biological evolution has nothing to say on the origin of the universe.


I believe the one of the definitions of evolution is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time and that man evolved over time and did so from pre-existing and different species. I would like to hear from those who don't mind sharing exactly what they mean when they say they believe in evolution but also believe man was created as man in the form he/she is currently.

From my understanding the theory of evolution states that man evolved over time into what he/she is now... meaning the idea of "descent with modification". That organisms have evolved through time. For the record, evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.The theory of evolution describes the emergence of new species from preexisting species.

One of the reasons I started this thread is I was surprised to learn of the percentage of people in this world (and more so in the USA as the percentage of people who don't believe in Evolution in the USA is one of the highest) who do not believe in Evolution. In fact some of you who write that you do believe in evolution I wonder what you mean by that because if you don't believe in the basic principles of evolution I think we are discussing different meanings of evolution and I am curious.

The evolutionary theory has been revised many times over and will continue to be revised in the future as the facts demand and this is the way science and theory work. Science accepts almost nothing as 100% proven and is always ready to change its mind when new information is discovered. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not is conclusive. IMO.

 

[BeekeeperBetty]

Hi Missy,

Just got back after being out all day.

I appreciate your honesty and, of course, we all have our own opinions and (thankfully!) freedom of speech. My impression is that you are very passionate about your opinions and love of animals. That's great!

If someone wrote 'I don't care about animals.' without any qualifiers, I would be a bit surprised. Sadly, there are animal abusers in the world. But I think most people have a level of concern for animals. I suspect that if a Presidential candidate was known to be an animal abuser, there would be a huge public outcry (and rightly so).

I'm not sure I understand your comment about BeekeeperBetty 'disappearing' and not responding to questions. I haven't gone back to that thread to read subsequent posts. Perhaps I should and then I'd understand.

But I wouldn't want someone to think I was ignoring them if they posted a question for me and I didn't respond. I might not have seen their question, I might have been busy with other things, or I might have felt unable/unwilling to articulate a response.

BeekeeperBetty said she was 'very upset' that you thought she hated animals. Not a response I would expect from someone if they actually did hate animals. Given her discussion about her activities (orchard, apiary), I would suspect she is a busy lady, with a love for and knowledge of nature and animals. Unless she is being forced against her will to perform duties she despises!

BeekeeperBetty,
If you are a victim of forced labour dealing with nature and bees and hating every minute of it, please send your location and I'll arrange a clandestine rescue op!

By the way, thank you for contributing to the bee population. Bees play a vital role that, unfortunately, isn't always recognized and protected.

Now I'm going to tiptoe away before someone makes me do 20 pushups for having posted twice without responding to the topic!

Hugs to you both!

Certainly not forced labor! It's great to be outside pulling weeds, and planning on where we are expanding our orchard to. We're getting our hydroponic garden started finally this year, too, and I'm behind on it.

I love our bees! I've got a chair set up near the hives and I like to sit out there when I have time and just watch them "bee." They are such a fascinating insect, and surprisingly brutal to their own. If a bee gets hurt or sick, they just chuck them out of the hive to die. Not enough stores for the hive? They pitch all the drones out to die. So harsh.

 

[kenny]

The evolutionary theory has been revised many times over and will continue to be revised in the future as the facts demand and this is the way science and theory work. Science accepts almost nothing as 100% proven and is always ready to change its mind when new information is discovered. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not is conclusive. IMO.

Bingo!
This is why I embrace science.
Science gladly admits yesterdays 'knowledge' was wrong because of today's new evidence.

I'm open minded ...
If Jesus, Allah or any of the other zillions of gods materializes and proves itself I'll be the first to accept the new evidence.
And no the beauty of a sunset is not proof of god any more than it is proof of a sunset fairy.

This is a subtle but widely-misunderstood aspect of atheism.
Atheist do not claim there is no god.
They just reject claims that there are gods or a god simply because those who claim there is/are god(s) have not met their burden of proof, with evidence.
It's an important distinction.

IMO an atheist claiming there is no god is the same as a theist claiming there is.
Both are technically wrong since nobody knows for sure.
The difference is one depends on evidence to believe something, and the other does not.

BTW, the burden of proof is not on the atheist.
It's on the person making the extraordinary claim, whether it is a pink unicorn in your basement or that a god exists.
To be accepted/believed extraordinary claims require evidence.

Science says, "Prove it and I'll accept it."

 

[BeekeeperBetty]

See, I thought that was agnostic, not atheist.

Despite the fact that we're Catholic, I completely understand the atheist and agnostic perspective because I was raised in a household with an agnostic/atheist father. We'd watch those religious shows on the history channels and he would proceed to tell me why it's all a myth and just taken from other cultures, etc. I have great respect for people of all faiths, which, unfortunately I can't say for a lot of the Christians I know in real life. It's a bummer.

But I also don't see how science precludes any type of intelligent oversight. One of the premises of Christianity is that God is all powerful, so if He wanted to make all the laws of physics and the universe, etc, then He can do so. I am a strong believer in science. I have a science degree and my husband is a physician. Yay science! But we believe in God and Jesus as well. My husband's family is fundamental Protestant, and they do not believe in evolution, science, doctors (faith healing only), and so on, and I do have a hard time fully understanding where they are coming from, because it was always my thought that God could do absolutely anything - including evolution.

 

[ckrickett]

See, I thought that was agnostic, not atheist.

Despite the fact that we're Catholic, I completely understand the atheist and agnostic perspective because I was raised in a household with an agnostic/atheist father. We'd watch those religious shows on the history channels and he would proceed to tell me why it's all a myth and just taken from other cultures, etc. I have great respect for people of all faiths, which, unfortunately I can't say for a lot of the Christians I know in real life. It's a bummer.

But I also don't see how science precludes any type of intelligent oversight. One of the premises of Christianity is that God is all powerful, so if He wanted to make all the laws of physics and the universe, etc, then He can do so. I am a strong believer in science. I have a science degree and my husband is a physician. Yay science! But we believe in God and Jesus as well. My husband's family is fundamental Protestant, and they do not believe in evolution, science, doctors (faith healing only), and so on, and I do have a hard time fully understanding where they are coming from, because it was always my thought that God could do absolutely anything - including evolution.

That sums up my thoughts on it exactly.

 

[kenny]

See, I thought that was agnostic, not atheist.

Well, 'we' (and I use the term we loosely) don't have a pope or any authoritative book.
There is no central organization, or any atheist doctrine to make sure that we get ourselves in alignment with.

Sure, there are groups that get together for socializing with like-minded folks and organizing charity or whatev.
Personally I have no need or desire to be a part of any of those, or for that matter any of the many gay social groups.
I'm very cool with mixing with a wide variety of folks.
I don't care how similar you are to me.
I care about how good of a person you are and common interests.

FWIW ... from my puter's Dictionary:
atheist |ˈāTHēˌist|
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

agnostic |agˈnästik|
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
adjective
of or relating to agnostics or agnosticism.
• (in a nonreligious context) having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude toward something: until now I've been fairly agnostic about electoral reform.

If a self-professed atheist wants to state they KNOW with absolute certainty that there is no God or gods that's their right/buiness/beeswax.
No skin off my back.
I feel no obligation to 'correct' them to retain the 'purity' of Atheists.
I don't even like the slippery term 'correct'.

Atheists are still looked down upon in much of America.
That's one reason I've come out of the closet ... same reason I came out of that other closet long ago.

 

[Sky56]

Both....I believe that God created the world, and evolution is one of the processes, or tools.