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.

[illriginal]

How would you define satanism (contextually?
How would you define an atheist?

Atheist creed:

Does not believe in God, Gods, Goddesses, human soul, disembodied spirits, after life, reincarnation, fate, destiny, man is nothin other than an animal with a high degree of self awareness, there is no meaning of life, they do not believe in religion nor superstition.

Satanism: The study of Satan and Satan's wisdom. Believed to bring us humans the wisdom of heaven and universe, both light and darkness as well as knowledge of self and self improvement. The study of self and self improvement teaches us that we do not depend on other humans; unless it's for self gain, do not depend on a force, nor God. We are the creation of omniscience, we are omniscience and we can achieve ultimate omniscience through self worship.


Atheism derived from Satanism or the bigger and broader root of Luciferian.
Like this: Luciferian > Satanism > Atheism

Atheism like I have mentioned before is nothin more than a sect to Satanism, where Luciferian would be the main belief. Atheist only differs 1 way and 1 way only. They lack in the belief of God, and lack of God is lack of Satan.

They are no better than Christians. For example, Christians believe in prophets, right? But why do they lack belief in Prophet Muhammad? Because they choose to! Because in their version of their religion, Muhammad wasn't worthy enough to have his point of view or his experiences put into the Holy Bible.

This is the same with Atheism. Atheism is just a human philosophy that was born out of Satanism. All Atheism did was re-create a belief system just like Scientologists did. Still the wisdom that Satan scripted is nearly the same that Atheists depend on... the wisdom of self... the wisdom of human philosophies. Atheist believe in science, the same science man has discovered.

The irony of Atheism is... it's a belief system in itself. It's a belief system that lacks belief in a higher being. Such a contradiction yet you dare use your belief system to disregard all other belief systems, almost the same way satanism teaches it, except some worship satan as their leader, while other worship them selves.

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.

Cut the shit, atheism is a choice after being presented the idea of a omnipotence or a God in other words.

[NoSex]

Atheist creed:

Atheism has no creed. In it's most broad definition, atheism is merely the implicit or explicit lack of belief. A lack of belief does not equate to a "creed." Do you have a "creed" of non-belief in unicorns or Santa Claus? Even if you are going to argue atheism as a "creed," you can not further the definition of atheism by imposing upon it a philosophy or system of beliefs - that's just arbitrary, superfluous, and etymologically inaccurate.

An atheist does not have to believe in evolution. He does not have to deny all superstitions. He does not have to be a humanist, a selfist, or a fan of rock and roll music. Although some of these materialistic and naturalistic ideas are often associated, and held by atheists, it is not by necessity that they are (just as it is not necessary that a Catholic priest sexually assault little boys). In fact, all an atheist has to do, in order to be considered an atheist, is not believe in god.

Your error, at best, could be considered a hasty generalization. But, really, you're just moving the goal posts and redefining words to suite your argument. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

And, if that wasn't enough:
"Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism.... Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.... " [1]

Atheism is nothing more than the absence of belief in gods, just as theism is nothing more than the fullness of belief in god or gods.

Satanism: The study of Satan and Satan's wisdom.

Great; no connection to atheism.

Atheism like I have mentioned before is nothin more than a sect to Satanism, where Luciferian would be the main belief.

This is the equivalent of saying that theism is a sect of Christianity, where Baptist would be the main belief.

1. Atheism is not a belief system nor a religion, just as theism is not.
2. What you described as Satanism is clearly only as old as the God of Abraham. Are you trying to suggest that people never exhibited non-belief before this period?
3. Luciferians were not Satanists at all. They were actually follows of Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari. [2] I think you might be referring to Luciferianism.
4. Luciferianism is only as old as the thirteenth-century and, really, a sect of Satanism.[3]
5. You suck.

This is the same with Atheist. Atheist is just a human philosophy that was born out of Satanism. All Atheist did was re-create a belief system just like Scientologists did. Still the wisdom that Satan scripted is nearly the same that Atheist depend on... the wisdom of self... the wisdom of human philosophies. Atheist believe in science, the same science man has discovered.

An atheist doesn't have to believe in anything, let alone science.

Cut the shit, atheism is a choice after being presented the idea of a omnipotence or a God in other words.

Not by the definition, jackass.

And, still, you don't really address anyone's points. What a f**king surprise!

[illriginal]

Atheism has no creed. In it's most broad definition, atheism is merely the implicit or explicit lack of belief. A lack of belief does not equate to a "creed." Do you have a "creed" of non-belief in unicorns or Santa Claus? Even if you are going to argue atheism as a "creed," you can not further the definition of atheism by imposing upon it a philosophy or system of beliefs - that's just arbitrary, superfluous, and etymologically inaccurate.

An atheist does not have to believe in evolution. He does not have to deny all superstitions. He does not have to be a humanist, a selfist, or a fan of rock and roll music. Although some of these materialistic and naturalistic ideas are often associated, and held by atheists, it is not by necessity that they are (just as it is not necessary that a Catholic priest sexually assault little boys). In fact, all an atheist has to do, in order to be considered an atheist, is not believe in god.

Your error, at best, could be considered a hasty generalization. But, really, you're just moving the goal posts and redefining words to suite your argument. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

And, if that wasn't enough:
"Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism.... Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.... " [1]

Atheism is nothing more than the absence of belief in gods, just as theism is nothing more than the fullness of belief in god or gods.
Great; no connection to atheism.
This is the equivalent of saying that theism is a sect of Christianity, where Baptist would be the main belief.

1. Atheism is not a belief system nor a religion, just as theism is not.
2. What you described as Satanism is clearly only as old as the God of Abraham. Are you trying to suggest that people never exhibited non-belief before this period?
3. Luciferians were not Satanists at all. They were actually follows of Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari. [2] I think you might be referring to Luciferianism.
4. Luciferianism is only as old as the thirteenth-century and, really, a sect of Satanism.[3]
5. You suck.
An atheist doesn't have to believe in anything, let alone science.
Not by the definition, jackass.

And, still, you don't really address anyone's points. What a f**king surprise!

LOL... I've laid my point all you've done is use f**kin wiki f**kin shitty pedia. Then to make it more comical you used BBC for some sort of source... But whatever, we'll just agree to disagree.

Atheism is still a belief system.. and it's a choice. Just because someone never heard of God doesn't automatically make them atheist, it makes them uninformed.

[BadCraziness]

LOL... I've laid my point all you've done is use f**kin wiki f**kin shitty pedia. Then to make it more comical you used BBC for some sort of source... But whatever, we'll just agree to disagree.

FAIL

He's making good points, maybe you should try addressing them for once, eh?

I remember you saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING ("we'll just agree to disagree") when we were debating earlier. Your debating skills are made of fail and AIDS, mr cracker.