Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Evolution and Atheistic Naturalism

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 8:34:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So atheism requires one to accept naturalism since they believe the only thing in existence is the Universe (all physical stuff), and not any transcendent dimension.

If that is the case, they must subscribe to evolution is the best method of explaining the existence of life.

Does that not mean they are also the products of evolution? How do they know then that their naturalistic philosophy is actually true and not just something that helped their ancestors to survive and therefore an inherited trait?

Of course they will say evolution preserves our ability to preserve truth and not to delude ourselves. Not so! Evolution merely favours adaptations which allowed us to survive in hostile situations in the past. Recent studies have shown mild paranoia is an evolutionarily favoured trait.

Therefore their belief in naturalism is equally unsound.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 8:55:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 8:34:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So atheism requires one to accept naturalism since they believe the only thing in existence is the Universe (all physical stuff), and not any transcendent dimension.

If that is the case, they must subscribe to evolution is the best method of explaining the existence of life.

Does that not mean they are also the products of evolution? How do they know then that their naturalistic philosophy is actually true and not just something that helped their ancestors to survive and therefore an inherited trait?

Of course they will say evolution preserves our ability to preserve truth and not to delude ourselves. Not so! Evolution merely favours adaptations which allowed us to survive in hostile situations in the past. Recent studies have shown mild paranoia is an evolutionarily favoured trait.

Therefore their belief in naturalism is equally unsound.
Do you know how many books there are?

Try to read one, before you attempt to converse with adults.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 8:56:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 8:55:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/21/2013 8:34:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So atheism requires one to accept naturalism since they believe the only thing in existence is the Universe (all physical stuff), and not any transcendent dimension.

If that is the case, they must subscribe to evolution is the best method of explaining the existence of life.

Does that not mean they are also the products of evolution? How do they know then that their naturalistic philosophy is actually true and not just something that helped their ancestors to survive and therefore an inherited trait?

Of course they will say evolution preserves our ability to preserve truth and not to delude ourselves. Not so! Evolution merely favours adaptations which allowed us to survive in hostile situations in the past. Recent studies have shown mild paranoia is an evolutionarily favoured trait.

Therefore their belief in naturalism is equally unsound.
Do you know how many books there are?

Try to read one, before you attempt to converse with adults.

Do you know how weird your obsession with me is? Get a life.
bulproof
Posts: 25,171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 9:11:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 8:56:45 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 12/21/2013 8:55:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/21/2013 8:34:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So atheism requires one to accept naturalism since they believe the only thing in existence is the Universe (all physical stuff), and not any transcendent dimension.

If that is the case, they must subscribe to evolution is the best method of explaining the existence of life.

Does that not mean they are also the products of evolution? How do they know then that their naturalistic philosophy is actually true and not just something that helped their ancestors to survive and therefore an inherited trait?

Of course they will say evolution preserves our ability to preserve truth and not to delude ourselves. Not so! Evolution merely favours adaptations which allowed us to survive in hostile situations in the past. Recent studies have shown mild paranoia is an evolutionarily favoured trait.

Therefore their belief in naturalism is equally unsound.
Do you know how many books there are?

Try to read one, before you attempt to converse with adults.

Do you know how weird your obsession with me is? Get a life.

You're the d!ckhead that keeps creating new threads with the same theme when your earlier BS is destroyed.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 12:36:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 8:34:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So atheism requires one to accept naturalism since they believe the only thing in existence is the Universe (all physical stuff), and not any transcendent dimension.

Atheism is just about God. One can be a supernaturalist (believe in ghosts) and still be an Atheist,


If that is the case, they must subscribe to evolution is the best method of explaining the existence of life.

Everybody must subscribe to evolution being the best explanation. Because it is. This is what the evidence supports, and it doesn't matter if you are an atheist or theist. The evidence holds.


Does that not mean they are also the products of evolution? How do they know then that their naturalistic philosophy is actually true and not just something that helped their ancestors to survive and therefore an inherited trait?

Of course they will say evolution preserves our ability to preserve truth and not to delude ourselves. Not so! Evolution merely favours adaptations which allowed us to survive in hostile situations in the past. Recent studies have shown mild paranoia is an evolutionarily favoured trait.

Therefore their belief in naturalism is equally unsound.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 1:17:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 12:36:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/21/2013 8:34:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So atheism requires one to accept naturalism since they believe the only thing in existence is the Universe (all physical stuff), and not any transcendent dimension.

Atheism is just about God. One can be a supernaturalist (believe in ghosts) and still be an Atheist,


If that is the case, they must subscribe to evolution is the best method of explaining the existence of life.

Everybody must subscribe to evolution being the best explanation. Because it is. This is what the evidence supports, and it doesn't matter if you are an atheist or theist. The evidence holds.


Does that not mean they are also the products of evolution? How do they know then that their naturalistic philosophy is actually true and not just something that helped their ancestors to survive and therefore an inherited trait?

Of course they will say evolution preserves our ability to preserve truth and not to delude ourselves. Not so! Evolution merely favours adaptations which allowed us to survive in hostile situations in the past. Recent studies have shown mild paranoia is an evolutionarily favoured trait.

Therefore their belief in naturalism is equally unsound.

Agree 100%
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 1:56:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 8:34:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So atheism requires one to accept naturalism since they believe the only thing in existence is the Universe (all physical stuff), and not any transcendent dimension.

If that is the case, they must subscribe to evolution is the best method of explaining the existence of life.

Does that not mean they are also the products of evolution? How do they know then that their naturalistic philosophy is actually true and not just something that helped their ancestors to survive and therefore an inherited trait?

Of course they will say evolution preserves our ability to preserve truth and not to delude ourselves. Not so! Evolution merely favours adaptations which allowed us to survive in hostile situations in the past. Recent studies have shown mild paranoia is an evolutionarily favoured trait.

Therefore their belief in naturalism is equally unsound.

If you have an infection, you find that your prayers only start working once you have started taking your antibiotics.

As I have said innumerable times; our "naturalism" maybe unsound, but it has built almost every aspect of our civilization; with every aspect of our civilization relying on the results of that naturalism so completely it beggars belief.

Religion on the other hand, doesn't. It has providing no objective material benefit to humanity or our civilization, has held back such discoveries and benefits due to appeals to ignorance.

Science works. Religion doesn't.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 2:11:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 12:36:49 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/21/2013 8:34:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So atheism requires one to accept naturalism since they believe the only thing in existence is the Universe (all physical stuff), and not any transcendent dimension.

Atheism is just about God. One can be a supernaturalist (believe in ghosts) and still be an Atheist,


If that is the case, they must subscribe to evolution is the best method of explaining the existence of life.

Everybody must subscribe to evolution being the best explanation. Because it is. This is what the evidence supports, and it doesn't matter if you are an atheist or theist. The evidence holds.

Do you think you can defend the theory of Evolution against any sort of counter-argument?
If you believe you can, I have someone you might be interested in debating.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 3:11:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 1:56:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/21/2013 8:34:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So atheism requires one to accept naturalism since they believe the only thing in existence is the Universe (all physical stuff), and not any transcendent dimension.

If that is the case, they must subscribe to evolution is the best method of explaining the existence of life.

Does that not mean they are also the products of evolution? How do they know then that their naturalistic philosophy is actually true and not just something that helped their ancestors to survive and therefore an inherited trait?

Of course they will say evolution preserves our ability to preserve truth and not to delude ourselves. Not so! Evolution merely favours adaptations which allowed us to survive in hostile situations in the past. Recent studies have shown mild paranoia is an evolutionarily favoured trait.

Therefore their belief in naturalism is equally unsound.

If you have an infection, you find that your prayers only start working once you have started taking your antibiotics.

As I have said innumerable times; our "naturalism" maybe unsound, but it has built almost every aspect of our civilization; with every aspect of our civilization relying on the results of that naturalism so completely it beggars belief.

Religion on the other hand, doesn't. It has providing no objective material benefit to humanity or our civilization, has held back such discoveries and benefits due to appeals to ignorance.

Science works. Religion doesn't.

Naturalism isn't science.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 3:23:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 3:11:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/21/2013 1:56:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/21/2013 8:34:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So atheism requires one to accept naturalism since they believe the only thing in existence is the Universe (all physical stuff), and not any transcendent dimension.

If that is the case, they must subscribe to evolution is the best method of explaining the existence of life.

Does that not mean they are also the products of evolution? How do they know then that their naturalistic philosophy is actually true and not just something that helped their ancestors to survive and therefore an inherited trait?

Of course they will say evolution preserves our ability to preserve truth and not to delude ourselves. Not so! Evolution merely favours adaptations which allowed us to survive in hostile situations in the past. Recent studies have shown mild paranoia is an evolutionarily favoured trait.

Therefore their belief in naturalism is equally unsound.

If you have an infection, you find that your prayers only start working once you have started taking your antibiotics.

As I have said innumerable times; our "naturalism" maybe unsound, but it has built almost every aspect of our civilization; with every aspect of our civilization relying on the results of that naturalism so completely it beggars belief.

Religion on the other hand, doesn't. It has providing no objective material benefit to humanity or our civilization, has held back such discoveries and benefits due to appeals to ignorance.

Science works. Religion doesn't.

Naturalism isn't science.

But it is a necessary consequence of it.

Science is built upon Methodological Naturalism. Even if the OP was talking about Metaphysical Naturalism; You can't reasonablly have the latter without the former.

The argument given is that if you beleive in naturalism, you must beleive in Evolution (arguably falsehood in it's own right) and thus how do you know how this philosophy is correct.

And as a result, it is perfectly valid to assert that applications of EITHER of these philosophies: In both cases science, to show how such a philosophy isn't inherently unsound due to the results of that philsophy compared to the alternative.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 3:37:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 3:23:35 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/21/2013 3:11:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/21/2013 1:56:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/21/2013 8:34:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So atheism requires one to accept naturalism since they believe the only thing in existence is the Universe (all physical stuff), and not any transcendent dimension.

If that is the case, they must subscribe to evolution is the best method of explaining the existence of life.

Does that not mean they are also the products of evolution? How do they know then that their naturalistic philosophy is actually true and not just something that helped their ancestors to survive and therefore an inherited trait?

Of course they will say evolution preserves our ability to preserve truth and not to delude ourselves. Not so! Evolution merely favours adaptations which allowed us to survive in hostile situations in the past. Recent studies have shown mild paranoia is an evolutionarily favoured trait.

Therefore their belief in naturalism is equally unsound.

If you have an infection, you find that your prayers only start working once you have started taking your antibiotics.

As I have said innumerable times; our "naturalism" maybe unsound, but it has built almost every aspect of our civilization; with every aspect of our civilization relying on the results of that naturalism so completely it beggars belief.

Religion on the other hand, doesn't. It has providing no objective material benefit to humanity or our civilization, has held back such discoveries and benefits due to appeals to ignorance.

Science works. Religion doesn't.

Naturalism isn't science.

But it is a necessary consequence of it.


Really? I have to be a naturalist to be a scientist?

Science is built upon Methodological Naturalism. Even if the OP was talking about Metaphysical Naturalism; You can't reasonablly have the latter without the former.


No it isn't, and even if it was you have it backwards .What do you mean you can't have the latter (metaphysical naturalism) without the former (methodological naturalism)? Metaphysical naturalism entails methodological naturalism; methodological naturalism doesn't entail metaphysical naturalism.

The argument given is that if you beleive in naturalism, you must beleive in Evolution (arguably falsehood in it's own right) and thus how do you know how this philosophy is correct.


It seems like he's trying to get at something like an evolutionary debunking argument which are quite popular (and quite strong in certain areas) in philosophy nowadays.

And as a result, it is perfectly valid to assert that applications of EITHER of these philosophies: In both cases science, to show how such a philosophy isn't inherently unsound due to the results of that philsophy compared to the alternative.

False. It could be pragmatically useful while being literally untrue. So it could still be "inherently unsound" while still having "good results". Haven't you heard of scientific anti realism?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2013 3:43:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/21/2013 3:37:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/21/2013 3:23:35 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/21/2013 3:11:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/21/2013 1:56:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/21/2013 8:34:28 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
So atheism requires one to accept naturalism since they believe the only thing in existence is the Universe (all physical stuff), and not any transcendent dimension.

If that is the case, they must subscribe to evolution is the best method of explaining the existence of life.

Does that not mean they are also the products of evolution? How do they know then that their naturalistic philosophy is actually true and not just something that helped their ancestors to survive and therefore an inherited trait?

Of course they will say evolution preserves our ability to preserve truth and not to delude ourselves. Not so! Evolution merely favours adaptations which allowed us to survive in hostile situations in the past. Recent studies have shown mild paranoia is an evolutionarily favoured trait.

Therefore their belief in naturalism is equally unsound.

If you have an infection, you find that your prayers only start working once you have started taking your antibiotics.

As I have said innumerable times; our "naturalism" maybe unsound, but it has built almost every aspect of our civilization; with every aspect of our civilization relying on the results of that naturalism so completely it beggars belief.

Religion on the other hand, doesn't. It has providing no objective material benefit to humanity or our civilization, has held back such discoveries and benefits due to appeals to ignorance.

Science works. Religion doesn't.

Naturalism isn't science.

But it is a necessary consequence of it.


Really? I have to be a naturalist to be a scientist?

You have it the wrong way round. If you are a scientist you will probably thought not necessarily subscribe to methodological naturalism. But if you subscribe to methodological naturalism, or metaphysical naturalism, science is a consequence.


Science is built upon Methodological Naturalism. Even if the OP was talking about Metaphysical Naturalism; You can't reasonablly have the latter without the former.


No it isn't, and even if it was you have it backwards .What do you mean you can't have the latter (metaphysical naturalism) without the former (methodological naturalism)? Metaphysical naturalism entails methodological naturalism; methodological naturalism doesn't entail metaphysical naturalism.

That's what I'm arguing. You have my argument backwards.

The argument given is that if you beleive in naturalism, you must beleive in Evolution (arguably falsehood in it's own right) and thus how do you know how this philosophy is correct.


It seems like he's trying to get at something like an evolutionary debunking argument which are quite popular (and quite strong in certain areas) in philosophy nowadays.

Exactly. I am simply citing the success of methodological naturalism (which is required for metaphysical naturalism) compared to the utter failure of the alternatives.

And as a result, it is perfectly valid to assert that applications of EITHER of these philosophies: In both cases science, to show how such a philosophy isn't inherently unsound due to the results of that philsophy compared to the alternative.

False. It could be pragmatically useful while being literally untrue. So it could still be "inherently unsound" while still having "good results". Haven't you heard of scientific anti realism?

Okay, I may have not explicitly stated my basal assumption that reality is real :P