“An attack on evolution threatens the very foundations of atheism, so it is a ‘life and death’ issue, and consequently an emotional one.”

Well, no. Atheism has been around since ancient Greece at least (eg. Epicurus), and they didn’t have Darwinism. An atheist doesn’t have to explain the existence of the universe. He or she simply decides that his/her experience doesn’t support the hypothesis that something exists outside of the natural universe that explains the natural universe.

So feel free to wale away at Darwinism and this atheist will not feel threatened. Until scientists abandon the hypothesis of evolution as the underlying framework that explains the biology and biochemistry of life on earth, I will not even give up on Darwinism, even if you expand at length on scandals of radiocarbon dating.

Believe it or not, evolution happens.

And no, atheists don’t need to contrive (sic) a naturalist explanation. No, an (unfounded) attack on (a usually misunderstood) evolutionary theory doesn’t threaten the foundation of atheism.

The only thing required to be an atheist is to not believe in gods, deities or divinities. Do I believe in the superstitions of a bunch of bronze-age goat herders? Not at all and that’s what makes me an atheist.

Someone else’s lack of understanding of science couldn’t threaten my worldview one bit. The only thing I might get emotional about is the absurdity of anti-evolution rhetoric happening on a university campus.

UA faculty member Professor Phil Bishop can keep his insulting and condescending “compassion”, since atheists like myself need no such feigned warmheartedness.

The text and tone of Phil Bishop’s letter demonstrate his arrogance on the topic, rather than showing any true attempts at compassion. Actually, his letter does not even show any true attempts at intellectual understanding of the viewpoint he is trying to argue against.

As an atheist myself, I can certainly tell you that evolution is NOT “the very foundation” of my atheism. Simply, atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. The reason that most atheists do not believe in any god(s) has little or NOTHING to do with evolution (although evolution DOES provide a logical, well-documented means of explaining a great deal of biology such as variations within a species, natural selection for species that do well in a given environment, eventual gradual changes within species to the point that the subpopulations are eventually distinct species from one another, all occurring via environmental, genetic, and other biologic factors that do NOT require intervention from any deity).

Professor Phil Bishop arrogantly pities evolution as being “hey, it’s the best that they can do.” But in support of evolution is logic and reams of reliable and consistent scientific evidence in practically every branch of science (genetics, chemistry, microbiology, etc.). Conversely, in support of the Judeo-Christian religions/myths there is an ancient book of stories written by desert tribesmen, mostly in the Bronze Age, who didn’t even understand what caused wind, rain, thunder, or where the sun went at night. But we’re supposed to believe them and their old book because they say so and they explain anything unknown by essentially saying that “god done did it”. No thanks.

But even without the well-supported fact of evolution, atheism requires no false compassion from Phil Bishop or others. Atheism does not rely upon whether evolution is true or false, and Phil Bishop ‘s attempt to say that it does means that he either totally misunderstands the perspective he is trying to argue against, or he is being disingenuous and intentionally dishonest in misrepresenting the point he is trying to argue against.

Back to simple basics: atheism is a lack of belief in any god(s). The reason for this lack of belief is because there is a LACK OF EVIDENCE for any god(s).

If someone does not want to be fooled and scammed all their life, a good rule to live by is that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The claim/assertion that “the deity of the Bible or Koran is actually real” is an incredibly extraordinary assertion. Thus, prior to anyone believing in such a deity there should be truly extraordinary, overwhelming, consistent evidence. But NO such evidence exists, just an old and barbaric book supporting genocide, sexism, slavery, etc., and the book is filled with contradictions, so I withhold belief in such nonsense until actual evidence is provided to convince me otherwise. Conversely, it would be foolish to decide to believe illogical things first (as the default position) and wait for them to be disproved later.

Meanwhile, I do have “compassion” for Professor Phil Bishop and others who cling to ancient superstitions. I understand that the human mind can be easily fooled, especially for those brainwashed in any cult/religion during their formative childhood years. Out of my compassion, I understand that many humans then cling to those ancient superstitions/myths/religions, even when they are full of contradictions, even when they defy logic and common sense, and even when they have no respectable evidence to support their supernatural claims.

I wish the best to Professor Bishop and to all of us on our life’s journeys, no god required.

Coming next…a pompous and condescending attack on Newtonists who are too attached to the “theory” of gravity. I suppose you’re going to offer intelligent falling as an alternative.

Showing ‘compassion’ with your attempt to ridicule atheists? Stick to kinesiology Phil.

You either can’t distinguish between the issues of evolution and the origins of life or intentionally confuse them.

Evolution addresses the origins of the species – not the origins of life.
Species have changed over time. That has been understood by scientists for hundreds of years. Humans have lost their use for wisdom teeth, the appendix, wh have vestigial tail bones.

Darwin did not suggest the species were changing. His was to describe the mechanism behind those changes.

You have just insulted the entire biological sciences wing of your university. Is Dr. Sobecky writing hack job articles defaming the underpinnings of kinesiology? The vast majority of serious and well credentialed scientists have accumulated a mountain of evidence pointing to the mechanisms of evolution. Why don’t you go straighten them out on these ‘serious problems’?

Atheists did not contrive evolution in the same way that David Koresh or Jim Jones or Joseph Smith contrived a worship system to suit them.

And as for the theists who can take or leave evolution? You ignore the groundswell of anti science types who see evolution as an attack on their god.

http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.discovery.org

Now there are some folks who intentionally confuse evolution and the origins of life.

Please leve the biological sciences to the biological scientists. You are in over your head.

Atheists, as a rule, are arrogant. The greatest scientific minds alive have repeatedly made it known that, although their knowledge of the universe is vast compared to the average man, in reality it is quite limited.

I believe in both evolutionary theory AND God. I’m tired of atheists telling me that I can’t do that, and I’m tired of them telling me that they know for a fact that there is no god. Most of these people aren’t even well versed in a scientific field, and act like their philosophy degree from a state school gives them the ability to make correct assumptions about subjects that Steven Hawking has spent his whole life studying and remains undecided on.

Scientists don’t even know what’s at the bottom of our own ocean.

Atheism and evolution are unrelated and have nothing in common. One can believe that a god created the universe and no longer exists. Deists often believe this. They’d be atheist because they maintain there is no god now and a creationist because they maintain god created everything at one time.

It is ridiculous to assert that atheism requires evolution. A wee bit of research could have avoided this embarassing falsehood.

FYI I am not a deist, and see no “problems” with evolution at all. Nor did Pope John Paul II. So much for this lie about a marriage between atheists and evolution. Pure pap.

Steven
‘Steven Hawking has spent his whole life studying and remains undecided ‘

Steven Hawking is on record ( numerous times ) as being an atheist.

Steven,

The god Franpilfaxal is at the bottom of our oceans. I know this because he told me, by revelation, and nothing you could ever say or do will change that TRUE FACT. It’s Truth regardless of anything you think. Also, in the future when humans do develop technologies to survey the entire ocean floor of our planet, and we find no evidence of Him, that still will not change the Truth that Franpilfaxal is there and he created everything. Also, don’t eat shellfish or I’m obliged to stone you.

However, for my atheist friends, Darwinism is essential. A Christian can believe in evolution or not, but an atheist must contrive some natural means for life and speciation that must, for philosophical consistency, exclude any Divine intervention.

Just one of the more current disingenuous and obviously wrong deceptions coming from the DI and other organizations that specialize in spreading disinformation about science and honest thought.

The default for anyone contemplating an unknown–if the person truly thinks–is that “we don’t know.” If we didn’t know considerably about the origin of life and life forms, God would not be the default answer. An honest expression of our lack of knowledge would be the only proper response.

After all, do we have an adequate explanation for the origin of first life? Of course not. Darwin never explained that, and no one else has either, save for some partial knowledge about a few aspects. Why are not skeptics bothered by this lacuna in our knowledge? Because saying “God did it” simply is no answer for anything at all.

What is more, Christians who are interested in dealing honestly with the issues don’t default to God as a proximate cause either. Indeed, it is insulting to suggest that Christian scientists are willing to settle for glib and meaningless claims that “God did it,” when honest Christians aren’t that shallow either.

Glen Davidson

@Steven
“Either way, a person who rejects all possibility of a god based on the fact that humans have developed sciences is definitely arrogant in my book.”

That’s a rather arrogant statement buddy. You just generalized that everybody of my “faith” is arrogant. What if I made a blanket statement that all white people were arrogant, or all gay people were arrogant? I’m going to assume you’re white, male, straight, and Christian (am I wrong?), and say that all whites, males, straight people, and Christians are arrogant because those factors make them arrogant by definition. Doesn’t sound too reasonable a statement now does it? It’s not far from Hitler saying that all Jews are out to take over Germany. Yes, I did just play the Hitler card and compare you to Hitler, but if people are allowed to compare the first black President of the United States to Hitler, I feel it’s fair game.

This really isn’t “compassion” as much as a gross display of ignorance on the subjects of agnosticism, atheism and evolution.

Brittni,

Not necessarily. I am not defending any belief of mine. Mr. Bishop made some gross errors in his article and I corrected him.

Phil claims all agnostics “feel so much passion against Darwinism,” despite the fact that agnosticism means “without knowledge.” Either his friends are not true agnostics, or they do not actually feel the way he claims they do.

I stumbled on to this site during a random google search. When I saw the title of this op-ed, I clicked immediately, knowing from the title it would be a condescending piece by an ignorant ‘bible thumper’. I was all ready to write a scathing reply that would both put the author in his place, while providing a cathartic end to my night. I am pleasantly surprised to find that the task has already been accomplished. I only wish I could see Mr. Bishop’s face in reading the posts here. I wonder if he is intelligent enough to realize that he has made a fool of himself and his flimsy argument has been lay to waste? Perhaps he will think he won this argument by just tapping in to the illogical part of his brain that allows him to believe in an imaginary omniscient being with a fairy-tale back story (while, no doubt, simultaneously pointing out the ridiculousness of other fairy tales, such as Scientology or LDS). My guess is that even someone who believes that the earth is 4000 years old, believes in a virgin birth and believes in the big old man in the sky, while delusional, still can’t muster up enough fantasy to think he was anything but owned by the retorts. Mr. Bishop, its okay, don’t feel bad–it is just hard to win an argument when your position is just plain incorrect. And being condescending does not make you look witty–It just makes you look like an ass.

@ David the Radical Leftist

I made a statement about a very specific group of people that I thought I qualified and supported appropriately. It doesn’t seem reasonable to me to liken what I said to your blanket statements about an entire ethnicity, religious group, and sexual orientation.

Christians as a whole have widely differing views and opinions on God, or any other social or political issue. You would be hard pressed to find two Christians (or Muslims or Jews) who have the EXACT same views about every issue and article of church doctrine. The same goes for all white people and all strait people.

Atheists, on the other hand, all share the exact same view on the subject of this conversation. As such, I think it is appropriate to make a generalization about them based on this shared belief (the belief that “there isn’t a god because science!”).

If all white, strait, christian males shared a common belief that made them arrogant, your argument would make sense to me. They don’t, so it doesn’t.

I’m confused; the by line says Phil Hudson but at the end of the blurb Phil Bishop is identified.

If this was penned by Dr. Bishop, it makes me sad to be a member of the same profession. From this blurb, the writer seems to indicate he does not accept evolution. Far too many of my fellow exercise scientists seem to cling to superstition even though we are trained scientists using biological principles in our research and clinical work. Perhaps it is the former jock syndrome. I for one avoided the pre-competition prayer circles as a collegiate athlete. If there is/are a god/gods I doubt it or they care much which state university wins the big game. But primarily it makes me sad to think such a well educated person could, as so many have already pointed out, be so ignorant and condescending of both evolution and atheists.

The greatest kindness you could show an atheist would be to get an education in the fields you presume to speak on.

I am a Christian, so I know very little about atheism except that its main belief is that there is no God. I have learned a lot from just reading the comments posted on this article. Maybe somebody who knows atheism very well should write an article on it and its beliefs. Maybe then the Christians who are less accepting could find it easier to accept (even though they should be very accepting anyway).

@Steven
“Atheists, on the other hand, all share the exact same view on the subject of this conversation. As such, I think it is appropriate to make a generalization about them based on this shared belief (the belief that “there isn’t a god because science!”).”

WOW!!!!!! You stated that blanket statements are improper, but then defended your blanket statement with another blanket statement. You said that was improper to make blanket statements about Christians or Jews because they have widely varying belief systems. Atheists don’t have widely varying belief systems? All atheists think alike? We’re all the same? Pick any 2 atheists out of a crowd, and we’re just alike, and both arrogant?

All Christians believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Maybe I think believing that people rise from the dead is stupid. It’s ok for me to go around calling Christians “stupid” because they believe in Jesus Christ? I’m talking to this guy on the street, and we’re having a nice chat, then he drops the C-bomb and says “I’m Christian.” Is it ok for me to reply, “You’re stupid?” I’m just making a blanket statement about his character based on that particular aspect of his belief system. That’s cool “in your book?” Since you’re a Christian, I’m just going to call you stupid. Snakes don’t talk, that’s stupid. You’re stupid for believing that too. I’ll be arrogant if it’s ok for you to be stupid.

Also, you made the blanket statement that atheists are all alike because they share the belief “there isn’t a god because science!” That is not why I’m an atheist, and science plays no part in some atheists’ “belief system.” That is an idiotic statement, which is not a surprise considering it comes from an idiotic person (you’re stupid because you’re Christian remember, and Christians believe stupid things).

Also, you’re very arrogant, so maybe you’re really an atheist and don’t realize it. If all atheists are arrogant, are all arrogant people atheists?

@David the radical leftist

“Fellow atheists (raises arms), unleash hell!!!!!”

Wait… we are atheists. I didn’t think we believed in hell? Now I’m confused. :p

@David & Jeb

I didn’t mean to come off as condescending, sorry.

Either way, I don’t think all atheists are the same in every way, like a bunch of mind numbed robots or whatever. But, when it comes to the question of whether or not a god could exist, they all have the same viewpoint. That is what an atheist is – someone who rejects all possibility of the existence of a god. I think it’s an arrogant viewpoint.

I’m not saying that this makes all atheists the same. You can be an atheist and a nice person, an atheist and a philanthropist, an atheist and repubican, an atheist and a democrat, an atheist and a shrimp boat captain who like the Beach Boys, or an atheist and an asshole.

As far as my religious beliefs go, I don’t go to church often, I don’t think all non-christians are going to hell, and I dont literally interpret church doctrine like Sarah Palin.

@Steven

“when it comes to the question of whether or not a god could exist, they all have the same viewpoint. That is what an atheist is – someone who rejects all possibility of the existence of a god.”

I’m seriously confused now. How is saying that any different than me saying that religious people are all the same because they all have the same viewpoint, i.e. that there is a god? Maybe I’m just getting hung up on a poorly worded zinger.

As far as it being an arrogant viewpoint… I’ll agree to disagree. By believing there is no supernatural force that created the universe, I’m not saying I’m better than people who do believe such a thing. I’m not saying I’m more powerful than your god. All I’m saying is that there is no facts to support such a belief. My refusal to believe Santa Clause does not exist does not make me arrogant. My refusal to believe the story of a Hobbit and a magical ring does not make me arrogant. And finally, YOUR refusal to believe in Mohammed (assuming you are Christian) as your god does not make you arrogant.

We all believe different things for different reasons. None of us are better people than the rest simply because of our belief in the origins of the universe. Live and let live.

@Tyler
“I am a Christian, so I know very little about atheism except that its main belief is that there is no God. ”

That’s it! You got it! There’s nothing else to know.

“Maybe somebody who knows atheism very well should write an article on it and its beliefs.”

“Atheism” has no beliefs, except that one! We couldn’t write an article about our “beliefs” because we don’t have any shared ones. That’s the point. We don’t have a Bible or Holy Books. The only commonality we share is that we don’t believe in the supernatural. For some reason in Alabama that make us aliens.

… my atheist friends …

Phil, I sincerely hope I never have a “friend” like you.