Evil Academy

Full Version: Why the Ethnic Muse does not believe in Atheistic Evolution
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Sure, this may be a bit scattered though and are super simplifications but feel free to dismantle accordingly.

1. ULTIMATE PURPOSE

Atheistic Evolution (AE) postulates that there is no purpose except what you give yourself. If so, why bother about theists? You cannot give purposeless chemicals or chemical combinations (humans) purpose.

2. EPISTEMOLOGY

On atheism, man's brain is illusory as it formed by simple chance. So, it is not logical to give yourself a purpose, yet they do. It is also not logical to think you evolved, that may be an illusion as well. Even logic may be an illusion. AE cannot explain the origin of matter. It only presumes that it exists and then makes extrapolations based on small scale experimental data. We do have experimental data that evolution occurs. However, this data is evidence for creationism and ID, not large scale evolution which AE desires.

3. NATURALISM

AE postulates that everything that exists is material. Yet they use math and logic, which are non-material. If non-material entities are so useful, why not a non-material God? And if a belief in God is found in most people, then said belief confers survival advantages (see point #5). In that case, atheists should be promoting theism to be consistent with their atheism which makes atheism self-refuting.

4. MECHANISM

AE uses a mechanism of mutations for deriving complexity. Mutations are known to be slightly deleterious (nearly neutral). It cannot and has not been shown how a simple organ X can change to an updated organ Y (with the same function) or a different organ Z (with different general function). Until this is done, AE is unscientific. Even if this were done, there are still inherent genetic limits that effectively render AE an impossibility (at least as far as the present mechanism is concerned).

5. SURVIVAL THEOLOGY

AE postulates that we are only concerned about survival. This however, throws out truth since survival may be enhanced by delusion of a threat. In other words, if we are survival-oriented, fully material chemical arrangements with no ultimate purpose, then there is no need for logic, science or anything beside survival. Actually, we would not need to evolve beyond simple bacteria as they are hardy and can live in extreme conditions unlike us frail humans. This also affects morality, there can be no good or evil in a purposeless, survival-oriented world. Thus claims about a vengeful OT God is inconsistent with their own beliefs. Consistent with their own worldview, atheists can be killed for the 'survival' of the fitter theists. AE doesn't make sense.

This does not mean that the E isn't true or possible but that the A is impossible and that causes the AE to be impossible.

Alvin Plantinga makes a good philosophical case against atheism here:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...irrational
agree or disagree?
Survival would be seem to be the basic concern of human beings, as well as other species, but to say it's our only concern is a stretch.
what a fucking dry read

I can't be bothered its that bad
yeah I tried again, it like reading a brick wall its so conformed. A string line, parallel lines, mortar and four sides. something a mason would write, meh
Plantinga is a shitty philosopher who proselytizes under the cover of serious philosophy.

I think the Atheistic Evolution postulate is something he formulated himself to argue against.



here is a good take on his bullshitand
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2...ument.html


to stupid to be refuted
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/...aturalism/
(03-02-2015 09:18 AM)EVILYOSHIDA Wrote: [ -> ]agree or disagree?

3. NATURALISM

AE postulates that everything that exists is material. Yet they use math and logic, which are non-material. If non-material entities are so useful, why not a non-material God? And if a belief in God is found in most people, then said belief confers survival advantages (see point #5). In that case, atheists should be promoting theism to be consistent with their atheism which makes atheism self-refuting.



That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.
Is he trying to say this AE theory does not recognize that math exists even though "they" use math ? WTF seriously.
For an educated person like Platniga to pretend not to understand that in terms of evolution survival advantage means successful transmission of genetics not necessarily a longevity advantage (see number 3) is just plain dishonest.

I have always kind of hated this guy.
Im with my brother Mr. Hiptosser on this one
(03-02-2015 09:18 AM)EVILYOSHIDA Wrote: [ -> ]Atheistic Evolution (AE) postulates that there is no purpose except what you give yourself.



On atheism, man's brain is illusory as it formed by simple chance.



AE postulates that everything that exists is material.



AE postulates that we are only concerned about survival.

Doesn't look like EMuse is arguing with real scientists, more like he's arguing with this stereotype:

[Image: BmnEdf9.jpg]


edit: EMuse, not Plantinga.
Don't agree with most of it but I agree with this point:

Quote:5. SURVIVAL THEOLOGY

AE postulates that we are only concerned about survival. This however, throws out truth since survival may be enhanced by delusion of a threat. In other words, if we are survival-oriented, fully material chemical arrangements with no ultimate purpose, then there is no need for logic, science or anything beside survival. Actually, we would not need to evolve beyond simple bacteria as they are hardy and can live in extreme conditions unlike us frail humans. This also affects morality, there can be no good or evil in a purposeless, survival-oriented world. Thus claims about a vengeful OT God is inconsistent with their own beliefs. Consistent with their own worldview, atheists can be killed for the 'survival' of the fitter theists. AE doesn't make sense.
Atheism is the lack of positive belief in any gods. The arguments put forth all make metaphysical assumptions that are not logically dependent upon atheism.
Well, here's my personal view of Scientific Atheism and why I consider it a religion.

It is the quasi-religious worship of sensory experience, and the rejection of rational unobservables.

Granted, most good scientists were/are not skeptics or Atheists.

Most of them believed in God.

So there's nothing wrong the scientific method or scientific process as a way of observing out world.

But when you subscribe the the idea that anything that can be known can only be known by "science", you've created a new religion for yourself.
^ yep. scientism.

It's man's attempt to take over God's domain.

Man is PART of the UNIVERSE.

PART is a PART OF THE WHOLE.

GOD is the WHOLE. the PART cannot exceed the WHOLE.
Quote:Granted, most good scientists were/are not skeptics or Atheists.

Religion always dealt with the WHY. Science with the HOW. there is no real contradiction between the 2.

Theoretical origins science seeks to replace Religious origin stories with their own math games.

their schtick is entirely transparent
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's