Does Evolution Require Atheism? Options

[Tung]

Well does it? Most religious people and hardcore scientists today are often incline to believe that atheism and evolution are rigorously intertwined. According to the majority (us), we are thought to believe that if one is to accept evolution as the explanation for life on Earth, it usually leads that person to become an atheist.

The problem I have with this assumption is that I don’t agree with it. Contrary to popular belief, evolution actually doesn’t explain anything about the origins of the universe, the world, or life in general. You can say Evolution is more of an explanation on the development of life.

I personally believe a person can accept evolution as an explanation for the advancement of life, and the diversity, while still being able to believe that the Earth and life were first caused by God. Therefore, there’s no reason why a person can’t be a theist and at the same time accept the theory of evolution.

Thoughts?

[NoSex]

Actually atheism is derived from satanism.

Blah blah, f**king blah.

1. Read a book.
2. What f**king "satanism" are you referring to? There are many different sects, philosophies, and ideas that are commonly identified as "satanistic."
3. The two main schools of Satanism are LaVeyan and Theistic: LaVeyan Satanism is a individualistic and atheistic church started in 1966 by Anton LaVey. [1] Theistic Satanism is often pagan in nature, but also immensely broad in its varieties. It's oldest known form dates back to the ancient texts of the Avesta. [2] [3]
4. Read a dictionary.
5. Read the posts in the f**king thread:

There are so many errors and absurdities in this thread right now that it would be fat too trying to even begin to "make right" the confusion in this place. Instead, I'll just deal with some really simple shit:

A non-believer is an atheist. An atheist is a non-believer. All of this is analytical. Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in any god (prefix "a," meaning without, "theos" meaning god).

Since atheism is not a religion, a doctrine, or a philosophy (just like theism), there can be nothing more said of it than that it indicates a "lack of belief in god or gods." So, to be an atheist, all you must adhere to is the narrow definition of "lacking belief." That's it. That's atheism.

Because of this, babies, who do indeed "lack belief," happen to be atheists. Further, atheism must be as old as non-belief, as old as mankind itself (possibly even older - it might be silly to call an insect an atheist, but it would still be analytically true).
(See above)

[illriginal]

Blah blah, f**king blah.

1. Read a book.
2. What f**king "satanism" are you referring to? There are many different sects, philosophies, and ideas that are commonly identified as "satanistic."
3. The two main schools of Satanism are LaVeyan and Theistic: LaVeyan Satanism is a individualistic and atheistic church started in 1966 by Anton LaVey. [1] Theistic Satanism is often pagan in nature, but also immensely broad in its varieties. It's oldest known form dates back to the ancient texts of the Avesta. [2] [3]
4. Read a dictionary.
5. Read the posts in the f**king thread:

LOL @ Modernized satanism and their philosophies.
LOL @ Westernized philosophies of satanism

roflmao roflmao roflmao

Like YOU said, there's many different versions of Satanism. Theistic and Atheistic being the main differences. Don't bullshit me boy. You may be able to fool these kids, but you aren't foolin me lol

[NoSex]

You may be able to fool these kids, but you aren't foolin me lol

Not only have I demonstrated the erroneous nature of your very premise, so have several other debaters - our points have been more or less ignored.

Until you can maturely and intelligently address the topic (and those arguing on either side), I would ask you to please refrain from making a complete ass of yourself. Don't post in the debate forums unless you have an honest intent towards intellectual discourse.

And, if you have any temptation to reply to my plea, may you first consider the counter-arguments presented to you and address them appropriately.

[illriginal]

Not only have I demonstrated the erroneous nature of your very premise, so have several other debaters - our points have been more or less ignored.

Until you can maturely and intelligently address the topic (and those arguing on either side), I would ask you to please refrain from making a complete ass of yourself. Don't post in the debate forums unless you have an honest intent towards intellectual discourse.

And, if you have any temptation to reply to my plea, may you first consider the counter-arguments presented to you and address them appropriately.

You're using wikipedia for information on Satanism for f**k sake lol... are you kidding me? I don't care how many schools are founded here... I'm not makin an ass out of myself, I'm actually laughing at you for attempting to confuse and sway people from the fact.

But whatever, I'm not tryin to convince anyone about it. They should be responsible enough to look at sources other than wiki... wiki isn't always authentic. I just can't even believe you tried to bring modernized satanism into this discussion, westernized above that lol

[NoSex]

You're using wikipedia for information on Satanism for f**k sake lol... are you kidding me? I don't care how many schools are founded here... I'm not makin an ass out of myself, I'm actually laughing at you for attempting to confuse and sway people from the fact.

But whatever, I'm not tryin to convince anyone about it. They should be responsible enough to look at sources other than wiki... wiki isn't always authentic. I just can't even believe you tried to bring modernized satanism into this discussion, westernized above that lol

You are not good at this.

1. Wikipedia is a great source of information. [1]
2. I'm not entirely ignorant of Satanism to begin with; I could have gone without citing information at all - I'm simply attempting to have a convincing, honest, and appropriate debate.
3. Nothing is "always authentic." But, in reviewing those articles myself, the information I cited was, insofar as I know. If you believe there is something specifically inauthentic about the information I presented to refute your arguments, it would be best to demonstrate this to us - as opposed to blabbering on bombastically.
4. "Modernized satanism" is the only sort of satanism that has anything to really do with atheism. Without LaVeyan Satanism, this supposed connection between satanism and atheism is even more embarrassingly false.
5. How would you define satanism (contextually?
6. How would you define an atheist?
7. If you aren't trying to persuade people, you might want to leave the debate forums.
8. The f**k did you even reply to my post for? It isn't like you're trying to make an effort - f**king still.

Seriously though, do you f**king know anything about proper argumentative discourse?

It's not wrong that atheist is the opposite of theist. I never said that it wasn't the opposite. What I'm sayin is wrong is people who claim that atheism never derived from satanism... that's all.

How could something that is conceptually independent, as it is, in its most simplistic application, true by the default of non-belief, be a derivative?

Satanism is not as old as mankind (at least not in written history), but, atheism, by definition, must be, lest you hope to argue that non-belief did not exist, until after belief... which, of course, is an absurd summation.