The worldview of an Atheist

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 87
Topic's author
#1
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
Despite arguments to the contrary - Atheists believe in doctrines and dogmas.  

An atheist chooses not to believe in God despite the evidence to the contrary. 

Yet, an atheist MUST believe in the doctrine of EVOLUTION.  There is no contrary doctrine. 

So, not only is there a non-belief in a deity - 

but there is also an affirmation of a positive doctrine - evolution. 

What other doctrines exist - for the atheist? 

Let us explore. 
#2
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
 

The worldview of an Atheist


 And all the above is "the world view" of atheists" is it?

#3
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Stephen
yes
#4
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
An atheist chooses not to believe in God despite the evidence to the contrary. 

An atheist doesn't CHOOSE to believe in any direction. An atheist is not convinced by the evidence you present, that's different. I can't choose to believe the moon is made of green cheese.

Yet, an atheist MUST believe in the doctrine of EVOLUTION.  
Atheism doesn't address the diversity of life question. There's an overlap in people who understand evolution and atheists because they both involve assessing evidence honestly, but furthermore there are many, many Christians who understand evolution just fine. 

Are you TRYING to make the most ignorant sounding topic you can? Because this is a fairly good attempt. 
#5
BearMan
BearMan's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 1,067
3
4
11
BearMan's avatar
BearMan
3
4
11
Like ludo said, an atheist doesn't choose not to believe god, they are forced not to believe god because the evidence to them points in that direction. 




#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@janesix

Stephen wrote: And all the above is "the world view" of atheists" is it?

janesix wrote: yes

Ok , it has been stated that a  part of that " world view" is that :  "An atheist chooses not to believe in God despite the evidence to the contrary". #1 Tradesecret

Would you like to show me "the evidence " that god does indeed  exist? 



#7
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Despite arguments to the contrary - Atheists believe in doctrines and dogmas.  
Perhaps, but not because of atheism (there are no 'atheist doctrines or dogmas').

An atheist chooses not to believe in God despite the evidence to the contrary. 
Beliefs are informed by reasons...sometimes good reasons and sometimes bad. The reasons compel belief - there is no 'choice'. This is the same for theists and atheists.

Yet, an atheist MUST believe in the doctrine of EVOLUTION.  There is no contrary doctrine. 
How do you explain atheists who reject evolution? Are you suggesting they are not real atheists?



#8
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
What other doctrines exist - for the atheist?
The reality of day to day existence......No pinning of hopes on supernatural deities necessary.


And as I stated elsewhere, you misinterpret atheism.

Atheism is nothing whatsoever to do with evolution....Two separate concepts.


And material evolution is self evident, as all theists know but are often reluctant to admit.

You're flogging a dead horse with this one.


Topic's author
#9
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Of course an atheist chooses to not believe.  He or she looks at the evidence as they see it - with a presumption - not with objective eyes. Hence it is a choice.  

IT is this presumption - that there is no God - that makes them conclude as a matter of a circular argument - that there is no evidence to support the reality of God. 

Take away the presumption or assumption and the evidence is suddenly everywhere because everything speaks of God. 


Topic's author
#10
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
What other doctrines exist - for the atheist?
The reality of day to day existence......No pinning of hopes on supernatural deities necessary.


And as I stated elsewhere, you misinterpret atheism.

Atheism is nothing whatsoever to do with evolution....Two separate concepts.


And material evolution is self evident, as all theists know but are often reluctant to admit.

You're flogging a dead horse with this one.
You define everything so narrowly as to ensure you could never see any evidence for God. Even your definition of God and religion is different to what people of religion define it. 

I have said on many occasions that religion and worldview are identical. This is how it defined for most people in the world. The secular position is much more narrow - in fact so narrow that it actually (in my view) begins with the presumption that excludes itself from being a religion or a worldview.  Talk about begging the question. 


Topic's author
#11
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BearMan
Like ludo said, an atheist doesn't choose not to believe god, they are forced not to believe god because the evidence to them points in that direction. 
Really. And who forces them to not believe in God? The evidence of what? or Who? 

It is an assumption. Presumption that leads you to such a point.  The Evidence I would suggest is everywhere for the existence of God. And there is no Evidence which exists that suggests otherwise.  

When people struggle to see evidence and yet others see it everywhere - there is clearly something amiss.  When I say evil is evidence for the existence of God and you say evil is evidence that God does not exist - then something is amiss.  For you to say that therefore that since evil exists, that God does not is contradictory to the view that I take that says that since evil exists, so does God. 

The question is what is it that is amiss?  And I am sure you have all sorts of reasons. Yet, I think it is because you define God so narrowly that you cannot see God. In fact you define him out of the possibility of existing.  
Topic's author
#12
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
An atheistic worldview has the following elements:

a non-belief in God or gods. 

and by implication - as indeed all worldviews are extrapolated: a belief in evolution.


The two are not separate.  All atheists MUST believe in evolution.  No atheist has ever produced an alternative position. 
The fact that many theists also believe in evolution does not change the fact that ALL atheists believe in evolution. 

IT is by necessity an implication of the non-belief in God.  What I want to explore is further implications - that demonstrate the atheistic worldview which atheists deny because they prefer to keep their heads in the ground like the proverbial ostrich.  


#13
BearMan
BearMan's avatar
Debates: 16
Posts: 1,067
3
4
11
BearMan's avatar
BearMan
3
4
11
Not gonna pretend I know a heck a lot of religion, I don't bother myself with that.

Really. And who forces them to not believe in God? The evidence of what? or Who? 
The literal evidence.

It is an assumption. Presumption that leads you to such a point.  The Evidence I would suggest is everywhere for the existence of God. And there is no Evidence which exists that suggests otherwise.  
It is also an assumption that god exists.

When people struggle to see evidence and yet others see it everywhere - there is clearly something amiss.  When I say evil is evidence for the existence of God and you say evil is evidence that God does not exist - then something is amiss.  For you to say that therefore that since evil exists, that God does not is contradictory to the view that I take that says that since evil exists, so does God. 
Are you calling atheists dumb?




#14
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Why is evolution the only doctrine? What does this even mean?

I don't believe in evolution dogmatically. Why do I have to believe in evolution? If the theory of evolution was disproved tomorrow I would believe based on the new evidence. It is not the theory itself that has convinced me it is the efficacy of the theory's predictive power and the evidence provided independent from a plethora of branches of science.

It is also completely besides the point to being an atheist. If the theory of evolution were proved wrong tomorrow that would do nothing to convince me that some god(s) exist. It is not necessary that I believe in evolution in order to reject claims which have not met their burden of proof. If I were somehow convinced that evolution were not taking place in real time or that evolution is not the best explanation available to explain the diversity of species we see on earth it would be one more thing I didn't believe it would not cause me to believe in something totally unrelated.

I'm most interested to know what you mean by provide an alternative to evolution also
 An alternative for how one kind of life evolves into another? That is thankfully somewhat explainable though you might be better served seeking out geneticists and paleontologists if you are really interested in the subject. If you wanted to disprove the theory I would start there.

If however you are referring to an alternative theory of the origins of life then you certainly don't understand what the theory of evolution actually states as it is not a theory about the origins of life at all but only how simple organisms can evolve into more complex ones through imperfect gene replication and the (non)guiding force of natural pressures causing some adaptations to be more successful in a given environment. I do not know how or where life originated and neither do you. In fact "god(s) did it" isn't any kind of answer even if it turned out to be technically true.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND ANY GIVEN HYPOTHESIS CONCERNING HOW ORGANIC LIFE ORIGINALLY CAME TO EXIST.
Topic's author
#15
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Why is evolution the only doctrine? What does this even mean?
I don't believe I said evolution was the only doctrine. I said it is a doctrine of atheism by implication.  Atheists insist that that are not a worldview and have no shared doctrines with other atheists.  Interestingly, even that is a doctrine per se.  Still, I think atheism has many doctrines. I just want us to explore it. It seems however that most people are quite shocked by the thought that someone might suggest this at all.   Skeptical even. 


I don't believe in evolution dogmatically. Why do I have to believe in evolution? If the theory of evolution was disproved tomorrow I would believe based on the new evidence. It is not the theory itself that has convinced me it is the efficacy of the theory's predictive power and the evidence provided independent from a plethora of branches of science.
Why should you believe in evolution dogmatically? And why should that matter anyway.  The fact is - you do.  There is no alternative for you to believe in. Evolution won't be disproved to your satisfaction tomorrow - it takes more than proof to disprove a doctrine. Doctrines have a tendency towards harmonization. In fact with great respect - despite your sincere belief that you would stop believing in evolution tomorrow if it were disproved- I actually don't think you realize what you are saying.  I accept you are sincere.   

It is also completely besides the point to being an atheist. If the theory of evolution were proved wrong tomorrow that would do nothing to convince me that some god(s) exist. It is not necessary that I believe in evolution in order to reject claims which have not met their burden of proof. If I were somehow convinced that evolution were not taking place in real time or that evolution is not the best explanation available to explain the diversity of species we see on earth it would be one more thing I didn't believe it would not cause me to believe in something totally unrelated.
This is not about theists or about proving God exists.  This is about the atheistic worldview.  Scientists cannot disprove evolution - because it a doctrine - a dogmatic doctrine that is implicit for Atheists. 

I'm most interested to know what you mean by provide an alternative to evolution also
 An alternative for how one kind of life evolves into another? That is thankfully somewhat explainable though you might be better served seeking out geneticists and paleontologists if you are really interested in the subject. If you wanted to disprove the theory I would start there.
I am not here trying to disprove anything. Least of all evolution.  I am merely asserting that evolution is a doctrine of Atheism. 


If however you are referring to an alternative theory of the origins of life then you certainly don't understand what the theory of evolution actually states as it is not a theory about the origins of life at all but only how simple organisms can evolve into more complex ones through imperfect gene replication and the (non)guiding force of natural pressures causing some adaptations to be more successful in a given environment. I do not know how or where life originated and neither do you. In fact "god(s) did it" isn't any kind of answer even if it turned out to be technically true.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND ANY GIVEN HYPOTHESIS CONCERNING HOW ORGANIC LIFE ORIGINALLY CAME TO EXIST.

I understand the difference between origins and evolution.  You and I have discussed it before.  The theory of origins and evolution are interconnected.  Even simple forms of life require a beginning.  

As for the notion that "God did it" as being a non-answer - that is debatable.  It requires assumptions I don't have to explore.  Of course you do not know how life originated. You say neither do I. I say - yes, God created life.  You say - you can't know that or prove that. I say - the evidence is all around us.  You just roll your eyes. 



Topic's author
#16
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BearMan
Not gonna pretend I know a heck a lot of religion, I don't bother myself with that.

Really. And who forces them to not believe in God? The evidence of what? or Who? 
The literal evidence.

It is an assumption. Presumption that leads you to such a point.  The Evidence I would suggest is everywhere for the existence of God. And there is no Evidence which exists that suggests otherwise.  
It is also an assumption that god exists.

When people struggle to see evidence and yet others see it everywhere - there is clearly something amiss.  When I say evil is evidence for the existence of God and you say evil is evidence that God does not exist - then something is amiss.  For you to say that therefore that since evil exists, that God does not is contradictory to the view that I take that says that since evil exists, so does God. 
Are you calling atheists dumb?

Not dumb. Just biased. 
Topic's author
#17
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
Despite arguments to the contrary - Atheists believe in doctrines and dogmas.  
Perhaps, but not because of atheism (there are no 'atheist doctrines or dogmas').
So you say.  I am rejecting that though - because the evidence is that they do have doctrines and dogmas that are necessary implications of atheism. 


An atheist chooses not to believe in God despite the evidence to the contrary. 
Beliefs are informed by reasons...sometimes good reasons and sometimes bad. The reasons compel belief - there is no 'choice'. This is the same for theists and atheists.
I assume you are making an argument here by way of determinism. 


Yet, an atheist MUST believe in the doctrine of EVOLUTION.  There is no contrary doctrine. 
How do you explain atheists who reject evolution? Are you suggesting they are not real atheists?
No if they exist - which is highly doubtful, they would simply be inconsistent atheists. A little bit like the Theistic evolutionist.  
#18
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Oh hell no.   Being atheist has nothing to do with a belief in the TOE.

#19
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Yet, an atheist MUST believe in the doctrine of EVOLUTION.  There is no contrary doctrine.
How long has this idea of evolution you speak of existed?
#20
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,204
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Bammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 
Nice.
How long has this idea of evolution you speak of existed ?

Topic's author
#21
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I think it is an evolving idea, 
#22
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Doctrine: A belief or set of beliefs held and taught by some group. (Oxford dictionary)

How long has the doctrine of evolution existed?
#23
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
I attempt to define things as they are known, rather than as I imagine them to be.

I'm also aware that any notions of creation that I might hold, are purely hypothetical.

Just like the valid but nonetheless illogical and "narrow" Christian hypothesis that you subscribe to.


And the Christian hypothesis "begs so many questions".

Like:  Where did god come from?


#24
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
There were atheists long before there was any human understanding of or scientific consensus on the matter of evolution. That invalidates your theory.

Saying god made all the stuff doesn't tell us how or why there is stuff so your hypothesis offers no useful answers.
#25
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
@Tradesecret
There were atheists long before there was any human understanding of or scientific consensus on the matter of evolution. That invalidates your theory.

Saying god made all the stuff doesn't tell us how or why there is stuff so your hypothesis offers no useful answers.
Agreed.
#26
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@SkepticalOne
As ways of saying "I don't know" go saying some god(s) did it is particularly unsatisfying to me since it would seem to like an attempt to close down further investigation of the matter.
Topic's author
#27
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
There were atheists long before there was any human understanding of or scientific consensus on the matter of evolution. That invalidates your theory.

Saying god made all the stuff doesn't tell us how or why there is stuff so your hypothesis offers no useful answers.
Nonsense. 

The ToE as Darwin put it - might be relatively new - but the ToE had many precursors to it. Some very famous atheists in the past held to some variety of it. 

In any event, it is hardly plausible that an atheist in the past  is going to hold to the notion that God does not exist and then say that humanity originated and grew from God. Just pure nonsense. Even you must see the implausibility of such a view. 

The ancient atheists do not need to have known the Big Bang Theory or the ascent of humanity in Darwin's point of view to be evolutionists. The fact is they denied God and by implication were evolutionists. 
Topic's author
#28
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin

As ways of saying "I don't know" go saying some god(s) did it is particularly unsatisfying to me since it would seem to like an attempt to close down further investigation of the matter.
I don't hold to the God of the Gaps theory. That theory is a typical one produced by athiests and skeptics to discredit Religious people. It however is a strawman argument. And everyone seems to know it but the skeptics. 

But neither do I know everything. Nor do evolutionists. For me to say - that if we find out one day - great - but I am not going to turn around and say it had nothing to do with God - just to satisfy the quirky position of an atheist.  It would be dishonest of me to do that.  Scientists - do not know the answer to most things and probably never will. This is not a reason to dismiss the things they think they know - they are happy to leave that for the future. I say the same thing with God - I am happy to leave it in his hands. I don't have to know everything right now. 


Topic's author
#29
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
 The Christian position does not beg the question of where does God come from. In fact that thought reveals only that you do not know nor understand the Christian Position. 


#30
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
What do you mean when you say evolutionist? If it only means one who believes the theory of evolution is sound then there could by definition be no evolutionists before the theory was proposed.