Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Why do atheists consider the concept of a creator as invalid?

Why is it that atheists find it more plausible that the intricacy - order to detail - of the universe, the earth's fine tuning of life, the human genome - which in itself has, merely for ONE strand of DNA, a building code immensely complex than human language - and the moral law in man's being, all came as nothing other than a result of chance/random happenings but most difficult to accept it was created by a creator/intelligent designer??
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
MethDozer · M
Most atheist don't consider the possibility as invalid. We just don't consider the validity of faith over reason and evidence. Since these is no proof or quantifiable evidence of a God or god there is no reason for us to accept that there is.
Dreammmer · 61-69, M
@RiverRatGlis: I believe that there is a ton of evidence and billions support this belief. The real problem is that Atheists are not serious about finding evidence and proof
Pherick · 41-45, M
@Dreammmer: There is NO evidence and no proof. Thats the point, PLEASE post some links to things you would have as proof.
MethDozer · M
@Dreammmer: Show one shred of quantifiable evidence.
Pherick · 41-45, M
@Dreammmer: I am not interested in debating faith. If you want to step back and say, "Everything I believe is based on my own faith." Awesome. I don't believe it, but thats fine, I don't have to.

Its when people want to make claims that there is evidence or that evolution is fake or whatever, thats what I have a problem.
Dreammmer · 61-69, M
@Pherick: Evolution is a theory with major problems yet to be solved.
The existence of Christianity over 2000 years is a very important fact.
MethDozer · M
@Dreammmer: The fact that Christianity is 2000 years old is not an important fact to it's validity.
Evolution is as theory yes. It's not perfect and is constantly being changed in light of new knowledge. religion on the other hand has even more faulty premises and major problems aqnd is stuck in rejecting gained knowledge. Also evolution isn't treated as a concrete fact as religion is. There is evidence, how ever small, to support it. Religion cannot say that. It's all based on the explanations for things people didn't understand or have accurate tools to study thousands and thousands of years ago.


Age is not tangible proof.
Drdirt · 26-30, F
@Dreammmer: Hinduism is much much older than that. Why don't you believe in Shiva then?
Pherick · 41-45, M
@Dreammmer: I would love to hear what you think the major problems are with the Theory of evolution? Links of course to good scientific articles would be needed for this.

As was mentioned above me, you can't just say "Its old therefore its true." That doesn't mean anything.
Dreammmer · 61-69, M
@RiverRatGlis: How do you explain the growth and expansion of Christian faith over 2000 years and still growing and expanding? How do you explain the massive and fundamental influence of Christianity on western society and countries in law, ethics, art, constitution? You want to dismiss all that as invalid? You profit greatly from Christianity. That is also a fact
Pherick · 41-45, M
@Dreammmer: How do you explain the growth and expansion of the color green over the past 2000 years and still growing and expanding? How do you explain the massive and fundamental influence of the color green on western society and countries in law, ethics, art, constitution? You want to dismiss all that as invalid? You profit greatly from the color green. That is also a fact


Makes about as much sense.
Dreammmer · 61-69, M
@Drdirt: Because I am more convinced of Christ and His teaching. Christ died for me on the cross and rose from the dead for me. The gods of Hinduism did nothing for me.
Drdirt · 26-30, F
@Dreammmer: How do you know they did nothing for you? Have you studied Hinduism or any other religion? Or is the only reason you believe in Christianity because you were brought up in a place where that was the the dominant religion?
Dreammmer · 61-69, M
@Pherick: that is nonsense. The color green never grew or expanded. End
Dreammmer · 61-69, M
@Drdirt: Just read my answer again.
MethDozer · M
@Dreammmer: Logical fallacy. Moving the goal posts. 10 yard penalty. Second down.
Pherick · 41-45, M
@Dreammmer: WHAT???? I guarantee you that 2000 years ago there were less shades of green in the world than there are today.

Are you saying you don't have faith that Green has grown or expanded? I demand evidence!
Drdirt · 26-30, F
@Dreammmer: I did and my question still stands. You are simply dismissing it.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Dreammmer: "Evolution is a theory with major problems yet to be solved"

Hmm... perhaps you would like to detail some of those problems..?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Actually, if we're going to be talking about the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, it will probably be helpful to first establish some understanding of what is meant by Theory.

Science starts with observation. We look at the world, and we notice things. Many of these things seem to be related, and so we try to come up with an explanation as to how they’re related. This explanation is called a Theory… we can think of these as ‘Big T’ Theories, because they are based on demonstrable evidence and they have wide explanatory power. Scientists then test the Theory in order to prove that it is wrong. This is an important point, and it seems to constantly confuse non-scientists. Science doesn’t try to prove that a Theory is correct. Science tries to prove that the Theory is wrong, and the Theory is accepted only so long as we are unable to show that it is wrong.

Contrast this with our everyday ‘theories’ (my neighbour is probably cheating on her taxes… my friend is having an affair), which are simply vague hunches or convenient fictions - we can think of those as small-t theories. Usually we go looking for evidence to support these ‘theories’, and it is common for us to ignore evidence that contradicts them. It seems to me that it's these vague hunches or convenient fictions that people have in mind when they say that evolution is ‘just a theory’.

You’ll hear people say “Science has proven that this is true”. Only the advertisers say this. You’ll also hear “Science has not proven that this is true”. This shows a lack of awareness of how science works. Science has never proven that something is true, because science never tries to prove that anything is true. Science tries to disprove its own theories, and accepts those theories only so long as they can’t be disproved.
Dreammmer · 61-69, M
@Drdirt: I have not studied Hinduism. And I did not study Christianity in order to become a Christian. In fact, no Hindu studied Hinduism to believe. Hinduism does not know conversion or what the bible describes as being born again spiritually. I can only repeat myself here to answer your question:
"Because I am more convinced of Christ and His teaching. Christ died for me on the cross and rose from the dead for me. The gods of Hinduism did nothing for me."
I am convinced. For over 40 years I am convinced and I have not doubted this conviction a second.
The discussion here is ample proof that the biblical account of human beings is true: man is a sinner, errs, is rebellious, lacks trust and respect and is easily mislead by ill feelings, pride and hidden motives. God says it perfectly in His word: "The fool says there is no God."
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
So... no problems?