Atheism: Philosophically Redundant?

[ProHypster]

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

Well, I'm not a psychologist, other than having taken a course some time and being interested in some of the psychology experiments, I'm more interested in the bigger questions rather than an observation how the mind works.

 

As far as philosphers rarely dying atheists.

I don't know.

 

It seems like their life drove them to some kind of theism/spiritism in the end.

But even philosophy relies on a fundamental principle: logic. If the world is illogical then we are all wrong.

As Aristotle said that there is going to be eventually a small particle that is undivisible which he could in no way prove. It is still not proven but we can logically assume it is a very probable philosophy.

 

The philosopher himself may consider everything to be said from him true as in being true/right in philosophy is different then right and wrong in real life.

 

In philosophy right and worng is defined by your philosophy and not through universal meaning.

Consider the Ontological argument by Rene Descartes.

 

You challenge every question you have, from "Am I real?" to "Could Quantum Physics really be logically possible?".

 

You reform the answer when you learn something new in your philosophy until you die.

 

Those that die challenging more questions, die smarter/wiser.

 

The most important question "How should I think, how should I get knowledge" is the first question you should ask yourself as a true phiolosopher.

 

With all that said, as you can see, philosophers can be very different, but they all share one thing.

They all love wisdom and thinking.

 

Usually people live ignoring these questions and live a follow model, learning the way they see others learn in their community. Born in a christian community, they will be christian and learn the christian way. Born in another community, they will learn like that community. Raised by atheist parents, they themselves will be either atheists or the opposite (rebellion, not through questioning) without really questioning. Of course that's not to say they don't question at all. But they don't question fundamental/presumed things and if the foundation of your thinking is wrong then your whole house of knowledge you are building will collapse.

 

EDIT: I just found out that FM 34 was made before machinima released FM 33. That is also an example of philosophy. Judging by the rate ross was going and how many days it takes for machinima to upload plus effects of popularity and other logical thinking, I predicted in the very beggining of 33 being finished that 34 is going to be finished before machinima uploads 33.

 

Well now, a week later, it's proven scientifically. Other philosophers would predict based on what they think, those that didn't predict at all were not philosophers. This is generally how it works in real life too except instead of a week it takes a lot more time

[ProHypster]

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.

That video is clearly problematic with too many illogical assumptions.

That is how a scientist would comment on it.

 

I just think think it's too broad and wild for me to accept that argument.

[Axeldeath]

Wai wait wait... Are you saying the broken watch arguement is logical?

[ProHypster]

Wai wait wait... Are you saying the broken watch arguement is logical?

No, that would also be illogical.

[danielsangeo]

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.

That video is clearly problematic with too many illogical assumptions.

 

Like what, for instance?

 

That is how a scientist would comment on it.

 

I just think think it's too broad and wild for me to accept that argument.

 

Please explain.

[Dan-95]

Bump.

Answer for daniel?

[ProHypster]

Oh, sorry, well here are the main reasons it is problematic for me.

 

The code he coded in to test the theory is debatable with real life code and it's fundament is the evolution theory.

 

For example, the results are as expected because he coded the equation to give those results.

I could code a creationalist code and it will prove creationalism.

 

When one outperforms another it doesn't mean that one will dominate and the other dissapear. It is an argument, surely, but it is not evidence and I do not know for certain if this argument is completely true.

 

Remember how this started? "Complexity & Design has a creator" is evidence for creationalists?

 

Well, the theory just puts the next creationalist question, well, assuming the theory is true, how was the code created

 

Why the video doesn't prove evolution to me? Because it's mde by evolutionary rules.

 

And I'm sure scientists won't accept that as proof as it uses some 3 types of gears instead of something carbon-like for some reason. A lot of what is in the video is not automated but coded for certain things to happen and what I don't understand is why noone expected the results to be that...

 

It doesn't mean the theory is not true. I like it a lot.

[danielsangeo]

No, the results are completely unexpected, actually. All he did was fashion what evolution does: That is, certain things help advance and certain things are a detriment. Being able to eat is a helpful thing. Not being able to eat is a detriment. That is all he's coded into his program. If a clock organism is able to "tell time" more accurately than another, then that organism survives and propagates. That is what happens in the real world with actual organisms. As the generators continue, more things that help the organism tell time better come together until you have what looks like a "designed" clock.

 

But this doesn't happen in real life because clocks aren't alive and don't mutate or reproduce. Complexity comes from simplicity. The code wasn't made by evolutionary rules. The code was made according to basic biology. Biology has "certain things" that has to happen for an organism to survive.

[ProHypster]

No, the results are completely unexpected, actually. All he did was fashion what evolution does: That is, certain things help advance and certain things are a detriment. Being able to eat is a helpful thing. Not being able to eat is a detriment. That is all he's coded into his program. If a clock organism is able to "tell time" more accurately than another, then that organism survives and propagates. That is what happens in the real world with actual organisms. As the generators continue, more things that help the organism tell time better come together until you have what looks like a "designed" clock.

 

But this doesn't happen in real life because clocks aren't alive and don't mutate or reproduce. Complexity comes from simplicity. The code wasn't made by evolutionary rules. The code was made according to basic biology. Biology has "certain things" that has to happen for an organism to survive.

 

What did you add here, that's exactly what I said.... except you converted it into a more pro-evolutionist statement

 

EDIT: Oh sorry, misread, I though you meant "It was made by Evolutionary rules" but you said it was made according to basic biology.

 

Although I do not see the difference.

 

The main thing is, I personally, find the video not enough as proof.

I can take it in as an argument maximum, and that argument to me is pretty weak...

 

On the other hand I know some, other, very good arguments and proof for arguments in evolution.

As I said before , I personally think there is proof in most, maybe half of evolution.

 

EDIT2:

No, but really I don't understand that argument.

What kind of argument is it when I simply say:

 

"Everything was made by God, and that is how it works in real life. Some people get born smarter, some dumber.

Heaven and hell are real as you can see by my code if I type in the code on how creationalism would work, and the graph would look like this...."

 

That is not an argument as much as a position in the creationalist theory.

The whole video is just the position in the evolutionary SCIENTIFIC (yes, it's scientific, so what?) theory.

 

FINAL EDIT:

And don't give me the bullsquid that being able to eat is a good thing and not is a bad thing is all he's coded to get those graphs... there is math involved and that math is definetly made by ebvolutionary (Biology or w/e you may call it) rules

[danielsangeo]

Okay, let me take a step back here.

 

There are certain rules of nature. A weak species (one unable to adapt to its surroundings and the changes inherent therein) will eventually die out where a stronger species (one that is able to adapt) will survive and possibly thrive. Leaving evolution out of it all together, this is exactly what we see in nature.

 

That is what this person coded into the simulation.

 

Step 1: Nothing is guided, except for natural affinities.

Step 2: These natural affinities will eventually form a pseudo-clock (a gear attached to an arm that swings back and forth). No, you can't tell what time a day it is from a single pendulum, but it keeps time.

Step 3: This is selected for, while others, such as non-pendulums, are selected against. Again, this is all natural and what we see every day in nature.

Step 4: A hand attaches to a spring (natural affinity) and the spring turns as the pendulum swings back and forth. This type of clock is selected for.

...

Step 158,293: Three handed clocks form, showing hours, minutes, seconds.

 

Again, all natural. Mutation + Natural selection = Evolution

 

This is what we see in nature. We have no evidence of an "intelligent guiding force". We do have evidence that, random occurrences (such as a hand attaching to a gear to form a pendulum) that are beneficial or neutral survive and random occurrences that are detrimental (such as two gears connecting to each other) die out.

 

Again, total common sense. Totally natural.

 

And thus, the great web of life.

 

The guy in the video simply programmed natural selection (which we see) and natural affinities (which we see) and let the computer program run. And clocks spontaneously formed on their own.

 

Maybe if you could be a bit more specific about what your issue with the video is...such as maybe pointing to a section of the video that you have questions on, I'd be happy to assist.

[BTGBullseye]

Again, all natural. Mutation

But beneficial mutations have yet to be proven to be transmitted through generations.

[danielsangeo]

Wait, what?

 

Are you telling me that if a mother and father both have brown eyes, their offspring won't generally have brown eyes?

[BTGBullseye]

Wait, what?

 

Are you telling me that if a mother and father both have brown eyes, their offspring won't generally have brown eyes?

Not necessarily. I've seen green eyed children from family that had 1 great grandparent with blue eyes, and all other family members were brown. It's just more common for children to have the same color eyes as one of their parents.

 

Eye color is not relevant to survival in any way, so what does this have to do with anything?

[danielsangeo]

Wait, what?

 

Are you telling me that if a mother and father both have brown eyes, their offspring won't generally have brown eyes?

Not necessarily. I've seen green eyed children from family that had 1 great grandparent with blue eyes, and all other family members were brown. It's just more common for children to have the same color eyes as one of their parents.

 

See up there where I said "generally"?

 

Eye color is not relevant to survival in any way, so what does this have to do with anything?

 

Perhaps it's not currently relevant to survival, but that's not the point.

 

If the parents have the same mutation and have offspring, they will generally produce offspring with that same type of mutation, aka "propagation". The very same mutation under different environmental conditions could be beneficial or it might be neutral or it could even be deleterious.

 

Unless you're saying that mutations of any kind will not propagate....but then again, even the creationist website Answers in Genesis states that mutations propagate...so you'd have to be even beyond them.

[Eedo Baba]

Atheism serves the purpose of any other belief system, to comfort or make content an individual. The search for truth is really just a desire to feel content in one's knowledge of the universe. Once a person finds an answer they like, they'll generally sit on it happily until they die. Atheism is no different. A person evaluates (exhaustively or not) and depending on what kind of person they are, they settle on a belief. This belief makes them feel they understand the world, and this comforts them. A problem with this is that an individual can grow attached to their beliefs, as they do not want to think that their contentment was false. This is why, no matter what the belief system, many individuals will stay with their beliefs stubbornly despite reasons which would have swayed them at the original stage of evaluation.

[danielsangeo]

Not really, ee. Atheism is not a belief system nor does it "serve the purpose" of one. Atheists, however, have a wide and varied belief system. Generally speaking, you probably won't find two atheists that agree on everything.

 

Think of it this way. I'm sure you have some sort of hobby. Whether it's collecting stamps or playing video games, you do something you enjoy. Now, imagine something someone else enjoys that you do not do nor care to do. That is atheism. You don't believe in a deity (as in, you don't collect stamps). You, however, do other things and atheists believe in many things.

 

Atheism doesn't drive anything...because it isn't anything. It is the LACK of something: belief in a deity.

[BTGBullseye]

Atheism doesn't drive anything...because it isn't anything. It is the LACK of something: belief in a deity.

Lack of belief is a belief. You can't not have a belief of something that you know about.

 

You either believe God/gods/deities exist, you believe they don't exist, or you believe both could be true. All three are beliefs, an as long as you know that there is this thing/idea that there is something called "God" you have a belief concerning it.

[ProHypster]

Okay, let me take a step back here.

 

There are certain rules of nature. A weak species (one unable to adapt to its surroundings and the changes inherent therein) will eventually die out where a stronger species (one that is able to adapt) will survive and possibly thrive. Leaving evolution out of it all together, this is exactly what we see in nature.

 

That is what this person coded into the simulation.

 

Step 1: Nothing is guided, except for natural affinities.

Step 2: These natural affinities will eventually form a pseudo-clock (a gear attached to an arm that swings back and forth). No, you can't tell what time a day it is from a single pendulum, but it keeps time.

Step 3: This is selected for, while others, such as non-pendulums, are selected against. Again, this is all natural and what we see every day in nature.

Step 4: A hand attaches to a spring (natural affinity) and the spring turns as the pendulum swings back and forth. This type of clock is selected for.

...

Step 158,293: Three handed clocks form, showing hours, minutes, seconds.

 

Again, all natural. Mutation + Natural selection = Evolution

 

This is what we see in nature. We have no evidence of an "intelligent guiding force". We do have evidence that, random occurrences (such as a hand attaching to a gear to form a pendulum) that are beneficial or neutral survive and random occurrences that are detrimental (such as two gears connecting to each other) die out.

 

Again, total common sense. Totally natural.

 

And thus, the great web of life.

 

The guy in the video simply programmed natural selection (which we see) and natural affinities (which we see) and let the computer program run. And clocks spontaneously formed on their own.

 

Maybe if you could be a bit more specific about what your issue with the video is...such as maybe pointing to a section of the video that you have questions on, I'd be happy to assist.

 

There's no section that's wrong. Everything is wrong. It's just a bad argument, by philosophical argumentation he is providing evidence by natural selection and natural affinities rules.

That is a weak argument to someone who doesn't have a logical foundation of thinking by those rules.

 

But that's not all of it, he also definetly assumes things one shouldn't assume, the data about time and speed + how fast the transitions are can not be coded accurately but only through personal bias/prediction. And of course the three gears are nothing like real life protons, atoms, neutrons, carbon etc.

 

The first part is why I don't accept the video.

 

The second is why scientists don't either.

 

EDIT: Guys, this topic was finished when Dan-95 answered my thread and we got to an agreeable conclusion, let's not start this again, all that's left in this post is Daniel challenging my post where I said

that both creationalists and evolutionists have "proof" for their theory.

[Eedo Baba]

Not really, ee. Atheism is not a belief system nor does it "serve the purpose" of one. Atheists, however, have a wide and varied belief system. Generally speaking, you probably won't find two atheists that agree on everything.

 

Think of it this way. I'm sure you have some sort of hobby. Whether it's collecting stamps or playing video games, you do something you enjoy. Now, imagine something someone else enjoys that you do not do nor care to do. That is atheism. You don't believe in a deity (as in, you don't collect stamps). You, however, do other things and atheists believe in many things.

 

Atheism doesn't drive anything...because it isn't anything. It is the LACK of something: belief in a deity.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear. My point wasn't surrounding belief in deities, it's surrounding all-encompassing philosophy, which certainly is not just deities to many people.

Atheism very much is a belief system. It's just not a belief system which revolves around deities. The word "belief" is in no way directly associated with gods or deities.

And it does serve the same purpose, in that it sates the hunger to feel content with one's understanding of the world. That was my point. An atheist feels content in their beliefs, just as a religious person does. No one wants to be ignorant of the workings of the world, and it's this fear that drives people to stick to their beliefs.

[danielsangeo]

Maybe I wasn't clear. My point wasn't surrounding belief in deities, it's surrounding all-encompassing philosophy, which certainly is not just deities to many people.

 

Then you're referring to those beliefs, NOT ATHEISM.

 

Atheism very much is a belief system.

 

Not at all.

 

It's just not a belief system which revolves around deities. The word "belief" is in no way directly associated with gods or deities.

And it does serve the same purpose, in that it sates the hunger to feel content with one's understanding of the world. That was my point. An atheist feels content in their beliefs, just as a religious person does. No one wants to be ignorant of the workings of the world, and it's this fear that drives people to stick to their beliefs.

 

Nope. You're probably thinking of something like humanism or something like that. Atheism is *O*N*L*Y* the lack of belief in deities. ANYTHING ELSE, including worldview, is not atheism.