Atheism: Philosophically Redundant?

[Rover]

I want to make something clear about evidence.

 

Consider this Daniel:

 

DNA is the evidence for evolution as in, it shows mutations, it evolves, copies itself etc etc and that is the basic theory of evolution.

 

DNA is the evidence for Monotheism as in it is so complex that it is just impossible to think that it was created by randomness and that God must've created this.

 

As you can see, Mutations is a fact. So DNA is evidence that mutations is a fact.

What most people don't see is that DNA is NOT and evidence for Evolution nor Creationalism, it supports it only if you already believe in or think like an evolutionist or creationalist respectively.

 

Lots of movements used both theories as what they called "evidence and facts", for example Nazism, Slavery, Crusaders....

 

It usually works like this, I say the world is "2+2=3" and someone proves that 2 exists. Then i say that "2" is the proof for 2+2=3.

 

But what about 2+6+7=3 or 1234654+456=7 both are supported by the same evidence.

 

I just want to jump in and comment on this post, especially this part

DNA is the evidence for evolution as in, it shows mutations, it evolves, copies itself etc etc and that is the basic theory of evolution.

 

DNA is the evidence for Monotheism as in it is so complex that it is just impossible to think that it was created by randomness and that God must've created this.

 

the mistake I believe you're making is assuming that both viewpoints are equal, you're drawing a false equivalence.

Where as the position that DNA, and how DNA functions fit the evolutionary model is based on the scientific method. As a scientific theory, evolution makes predictions, which are then tested against objective observations of reality. This is the scientific method, it's what makes a theory a theory.

 

Where as the first viewpoint is based on prediction, observation and falsification the second viewpoint is basically an argument from incredulity. It is a wholly subjective personal viewpoint which states "I personally cannot conceive how DNA came to be through natural means, therefore I posit a supernatural (magical) origin."

This argument is based on a lack of information and circular reasoning, not a special insight. It assumes that complexity cannot arise naturally because it is complex. It ignores that evolution is cumulative and gradual, and it ignores that while one person may have to make a retreat into the unverifiable supernatural to explain complexity, the same does not go for others.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[danielsangeo]

I apologize for going backwards a bit (I got busy with other stuff!) because I want to touch on this.

 

I want to make something clear about evidence.

 

Consider this Daniel:

 

DNA is the evidence for evolution as in, it shows mutations, it evolves, copies itself etc etc and that is the basic theory of evolution.

 

So far, so good.

 

DNA is the evidence for Monotheism as in it is so complex that it is just impossible to think that it was created by randomness and that God must've created this.

 

Whoa...hold up. What? This is "Argument from Ignorance"....combined with a little misrepresentation.

 

EDIT: Expanding on this part a lot more:

It's not quite as random as you are led to believe by "creationalists". Sure, the mutations and such are random, but the survival and propagation of "good" or "neutral" mutations and elimination of deleterious mutations are reliant on most-assuredly NON-RANDOM sources....ie: Natural selection.

 

Think about it this way, for a completely NON-organic example: A bar magnet has a "north" and "south" side. The "north" side is attracted to the "south" side of another magnet and repulsed by the "north" side. Natural attractors and repulsors. So, take a bunch of bar magnets and put them in a bag. Shake the bag up and down, then pour out the contents. Completely "random", right? But then, why are so many magnets sticking to each other, every single one that sticks to the other is connected north-south. Because of the natural attractors and repulsors inherent in a bar magnet.

 

Life is similar. Complexity can come from simple removal of "bad code" and duplication/mutation of "good/neutral code". Eventually, complexity from simplicity.

 

For example, let's take the English alphabet as an analogy. It's a collection of 26 letters. Letters can attach to each other to form "words". However, these 'words' may or may not survive the natural selection process. Before a word can even survive to birth (assuming that words are living things), the following rules must be in place:

 

1. Words must have a vowel (AEIOU and perhaps sometimes W and Y) in them to survive.

2. The letter Q and the letter U naturally attract one another.

3. More than two letters of a single kind cannot attach together (In other words, you can't have three Ls together).

 

So, let's take a group of letters, throw them on the floor, and let them arrange haphazardly. KJFEF EOQUYE PFOW FIWOPER FKQUOARFJ

 

Nothing, right? But they are 'born', live, and die....without finding a suitable mate and cannot procreate. So, let's keep doing this hundreds of thousands of times. Eventually, you'll get something like: KEJF PRWEJQUOT ROAD PFR A PRETEXT

 

Suddenly, there are three words that procreate. Three other words die without being able to procreate. We now have a surviving group of organisms: ROAD A PRETEXT. These words survive and thrive. Let's keep doing that. Hundreds of thousands of throws later, with ROAD, A, and PRETEXT surviving with each throw. Eventually more words begin popping up because these words are attractive to other words...such as two ROADs and two PRETEXTs getting it on. And new words are popping up. CAT, BLOCK, CAN, SPEAKER, QUEEN. And so forth.

 

Finally, something happens. CAN mutates and its genetic code duplicates. It is now CANCAN. It survives because it's a word, so in each of the subsequent throws, CANCAN continues to survive. Later, CANCAN mutates again, two of the letters changing into other letters, and one letter dropping off. Now CANCAN produces CANDY. But, the word CAN also continues to survive (The CANCAN/CANDY mutation doesn't eliminate the parent organism CAN).

 

See where I'm going with this?

 

Now, let's say that different words become attracted to each other and they produce two word combinations. FIRE TRUCK. GARDEN HOSE. Words of one type (which we'll call "adjectives") are attracted to words of another type (which we'll call "nouns"). BLUE BALL. LOUD NOISE. WHITE HOUSE. And so on. And now these word groups get together with other word groups, such as a type of word we'll call a "verb". Now we have "A BLUE BALL ROLLS DOWN HILL". Suddenly, these groups of words are what we'll call a "sentence".

 

And sentences like to get together and form multi-sentence groups that we'll call a "paragraph".

 

And so on. And so on.

 

Until English language books are being created.

 

From single group of 26 letters with natural attractors/repulsors.

 

(Now, this is oversimplified and life is a bit different, but you get the general idea.)

 

As you can see, Mutations is a fact. So DNA is evidence that mutations is a fact.

 

Yup.

 

What most people don't see is that DNA is NOT and evidence for Evolution

 

Why not?

 

nor Creationalism, it supports it only if you already believe in or think like an evolutionist or creationalist respectively.

 

Lots of movements used both theories as what they called "evidence and facts", for example Nazism, Slavery, Crusaders....

 

It usually works like this, I say the world is "2+2=3" and someone proves that 2 exists. Then i say that "2" is the proof for 2+2=3.

 

But what about 2+6+7=3 or 1234654+456=7 both are supported by the same evidence.

 

 

Atheism is philosophically viable because it is an explanation.

 

No, it's not.

 

As for that Satan webpage, red on black is hard on the eyes but I red (hehe) some of it.... I'm not sure how this is different from a fiction book, to be honest. Except fiction books are generally better written...

Edited May 18, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Alyxx Thorne]

I think atheism isn't philosophically redundant. A lot of philosophers questioned the existence of God.

[danielsangeo]

^that

 

Atheism isn't philosophically redundant because it's not a philosophy.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Why not? If you deny God because you have reasoned to the lack of his existence then I would say it's as much of a philosophy as anything else since philosophy is mostly just theoretical reasoning.

[Rover]

Why not? If you deny God because you have reasoned to the lack of his existence then I would say it's as much of a philosophy as anything else since philosophy is mostly just theoretical reasoning.

 

Depends on how you define atheism.

If you define it as emphatically stating there is no god. Then it may count as philosophy.

But if you define atheism simply as the absence of theism it just that, and nothing more.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Atheism is more than just absence of theism to most people, and a lot of them have some reasoning behind their faith, or rather lack thereof.

And to me, philosophy is just reasoning so a lot of things can have a philosophy, even atheism. Theism and philosophy are not the same things.

[Doom Shepherd]

EDIT: Wow, shepherd, so hard to figure out who minus repped me..... .

 

I don't bother to minus rep people. Mocking them is much more satisfying. I only vote people up on those very rare occasions when I feel they've said something uncommonly smart.

 

Whoever's getting you, it's not me. Whoever's upvoting you... is probably an alt account.

Well if you want to prove to yourself that there are no spirits, go ahead, use those tools, you know you want it.

 

A Ouija board? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? Because yes, items of ULTIMATE ARCANE POWER are mass-produced by Parker Brothers and sold at Toys R' Us between Monopoly and Pictionary.

 

The Ouija board has one function, although it is very good at that one function.

 

That function is scaring gullible preteen girls.

 

Playing with "magick," been there, done that, got the "aww, nothing happened... EVER..." T-shirt. Hell, I used to "hire" myself out as a ghost/curse/magic buster, because NOTHING could ever happen when I was around (because nothing ever happens, since magic doesn't exist, I just took credit for that fact.) Kids would give me money to remove whatever "whammies" they fooled themselves into believing other kids put on them. It was quite lucrative, for a while.

 

Keep this up, and we'll have to revoke your username, change it to "ThatGuy."

[danielsangeo]

The other function of Ouija boards is props for horror movies bringing about special effects makeup on human beings that play demons and sometimes buckets of red-colored Karo syrup to simulate blood done to make a bunch of cash.

[BTGBullseye]

If you try to read this how do you feel?

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/Welcome.html

I actually recorded a video of my face when I read that... Interesting contortions that I can do when I'm reading some of the most idiotic nonsense ever put to type...

 

 

EDIT: Wow, shepherd, so hard to figure out who minus repped me..... .

 

I don't bother to minus rep people. Mocking them is much more satisfying. I only vote people up on those very rare occasions when I feel they've said something uncommonly smart.

 

Whoever's getting you, it's not me. Whoever's upvoting you... is probably an alt account.

Well if you want to prove to yourself that there are no spirits, go ahead, use those tools, you know you want it.

 

A Ouija board? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?? Because yes, items of ULTIMATE ARCANE POWER are mass-produced by Parker Brothers and sold at Toys R' Us between Monopoly and Pictionary.

 

The Ouija board has one function, although it is very good at that one function.

 

That function is scaring gullible preteen girls.

 

Playing with "magick," been there, done that, got the "aww, nothing happened... EVER..." T-shirt. Hell, I used to "hire" myself out as a ghost/curse/magic buster, because NOTHING could ever happen when I was around (because nothing ever happens, since magic doesn't exist, I just took credit for that fact.) Kids would give me money to remove whatever "whammies" they fooled themselves into believing other kids put on them. It was quite lucrative, for a while.

 

Keep this up, and we'll have to revoke your username, change it to "ThatGuy."

Had to give you +rep for that bit... I've done that too...

 

"Hauntings" as most people think of them don't exist, and I can prove it any time you want to take me to a "haunted" place.

[ProHypster]

Well, I would reply to this whole mess, but I'm not gonna bother, too lazy, I'm just going to say that you can always consider it and think about it some time.

 

The attacks made on me mostly were attacks on something I never claimed to be true. Like the "hauntings".

 

The Ouija board... well I sort of expected those attacks but I stick to my statement so you can either call me crazy or just right.

 

What I want to do is stick on topic and not go into evolution vs creationalism

 

Waiting for Dan's reply to the proposal on atheism I made.

[danielsangeo]

Atheism is more than just absence of theism to most people, and a lot of them have some reasoning behind their faith, or rather lack thereof.

And to me, philosophy is just reasoning so a lot of things can have a philosophy, even atheism. Theism and philosophy are not the same things.

 

Atheism is just the lack of belief in deities (lack of theism). Anything more than that, even for self-admitted atheists, is something beyond atheism. If you "believe there's no god", that's not atheism. If you "believe in science", that's not atheism.

 

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. End of story. Atheists, on the other hand, have a wide and varied belief structure about many different topics and have many different philosophies.

 

The Ouija board... well I sort of expected those attacks but I stick to my statement so you can either call me crazy or just right.

 

A Ouija board is simply an ideomotor response from those touching the planchette. They may believe that they're not moving the planchette and will insist that they're not moving it, but they are.

 

Waiting for Dan's reply to the proposal on atheism I made.

 

Me or the other Dan?

[Alyxx Thorne]

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. End of story. Atheists, on the other hand, have a wide and varied belief structure about many different topics and have many different philosophies

Well put. It was sort of what I wanted to say.

[ProHypster]

Well, there we go, danielsangeo answered this topic properly.

 

Offtopic: Argh... on the planchette, obviously the planchette is being moved by the people, it's not like anyone says it moves itself.

 

What do you know about the unconcious though, daniel?

Oh and with Dan I meant Dan-95, he started this topic.

 

Oh and daniel, you could easily say that if there is only one number, one world, one mathematical entity, and this entity is what happened, then there is nothing random about it. That is just one logical statement against my "proof for monotheists". So much simpler then the extremely far stretched text you wrote.

 

The more you write, the more you assume, the less chances there are for it to be true.

 

I can accept your argument, but I find it very problematic.

I've considered that argument before already.

[Axeldeath]

Why not? If you deny God because you have reasoned to the lack of his existence then I would say it's as much of a philosophy as anything else since philosophy is mostly just theoretical reasoning.

 

I don't "deny" God, IMO there is no god so how could I deny it.

[danielsangeo]

Oh and daniel, you could easily say that if there is only one number, one world, one mathematical entity, and this entity is what happened, then there is nothing random about it. That is just one logical statement against my "proof for monotheists". So much simpler then the extremely far stretched text you wrote.

 

The more you write, the more you assume, the less chances there are for it to be true.

 

I can accept your argument, but I find it very problematic.

I've considered that argument before already.

 

Why is is far fetched and problematic? Watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

 

It's pretty simple if you understand basic biology.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Why not? If you deny God because you have reasoned to the lack of his existence then I would say it's as much of a philosophy as anything else since philosophy is mostly just theoretical reasoning.

 

I don't "deny" God, IMO there is no god so how could I deny it.

Isn't saying "there is no God" equal to denying the existence of God?

[danielsangeo]

No more than "denying the existence of leprechauns" or "denying the existence of polka dotted Motown-singing Dorito chips wearing tophats and driving FTL spaceships".

 

The implication in "denying the existence of X" is that "X" exists and you're just denying that it does.

 

If you deny vortigaunts because you have reasoned to the lack of their existence then I would say it's as much of a philosophy as anything else since philosophy is mostly just theoretical reasoning.

[Alyxx Thorne]

Ah, I see. That makes sense in a way. And it would be awesome if vaurtigaunts were real and all talked like a heavy-smoking black man.

[Dan-95]

Alright, stole some definitions off google...

Philosophy:a. The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence.

b.A theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior.

 

In case a it would be possible for atheism to be redundant, but perhaps the acompanied adverb has badly described this case.

 

Case b you would be completely right.

 

Also, yet again, i think we've stretched out the term atheist. Lets not forget there is such a thing as a spiritual atheist. And belief in atheism is an answer to the idea god, as a whole. So we have different definitions of atheist, from spiritual to realists. Lets just jump off these ideas for now

 

Also, you being a Psychologist (i think), do you think philosophers rarely dieing as an atheist is more than coincidence?