Is atheism self-contradictory ?

[The Grand Nudger]

The "strong argument" is tanked, as mentioned before and elaborated upon since by others...by the fact that ascertaining truth -is- a survival benefit, and regardless of whether or not the dumb can be selected for in our case it wasn't.  '

The gazelle does a little math of it's own when it surveys the savannah.  Namely, "less than or more than 1 cheetah."  Selecting for the things that help a gazelle determine the relative level of cheetah threat is selecting the -same- thing that helped us do higher math. Ultimately, the "dumb" survival intincts are the basis of higher math in our own species - we starting out doing that exact internal algebra ourselves.

[bennyboy]

The gazelle does a little math of it's own when it surveys the savannah.  Namely, "less than or more than 1 cheetah."  

[Astonished]

The gazelle does a little math of it's own when it surveys the savannah.  Namely, "less than or more than 1 cheetah."  

And the cheetah doesn't just say "OOH GAZELLE YUMZ TIME TA EAT!" They seek from afar, scouting, searching for the weak one that can be preyed upon the most easily. Same with animals at the watering hole; they look around carefully so that when they're at their most vulnerable, they aren't going to be caught unawares. These may not be genetic per se, but they are capable of learning them with whatever sort of brains they have, and the behaviors (memes, in the evolutionary sense) that lead to surviving, irrational or not, survive along with the organisms that practice them. There's no reason both rational and irrational behaviors can't coexist with the same species as long as they help the organism survive. It's just a matter of determining whether they are in fact necessary to the survival or just vestigial. We're just lucky we've evolved to the point where we can understand all of this and can come to the objective conclusion that religion is an unnecessary holdover from when whatever function it previously served was no longer useful for the same purpose and it mutated into something unrecognizable and would be best if we abandoned it. The religious mind doesn't realize it but if their selection is the one that wins out (if they start flexing their muscles again and start killing infidels and unbelievers) they'll drive themselves to extinction because it's an inherently unsustainable means of doing anything. The fact that those who didn't let faith dominate their entire lives have been putting out their fires from the beginning doesn't mean that religion had something positive to provide towards survival value, it means that in spite of all the damage it's done, secular values are keeping the species from going under.

[Amarok]

Of course this will never satisfy the theist only a top down approach will do . Only a magic super mind can save us . it's foolish  it's dumb but they will insist on it.

[Astonished]

Of course this will never satisfy the theist only a top down approach will do . Only a magic super mind can save us . it's foolish  it's dumb but they will insist on it.

Top down, huh? So who or what conjured up their super magic sky fairy?

[Amarok]

And the cheetah doesn't just say "OOH GAZELLE YUMZ TIME TA EAT!" They seek from afar, scouting, searching for the weak one that can be preyed upon the most easily. Same with animals at the watering hole; they look around carefully so that when they're at their most vulnerable, they aren't going to be caught unawares. These may not be genetic per se, but they are capable of learning them with whatever sort of brains they have, and the behaviors (memes, in the evolutionary sense) that lead to surviving, irrational or not, survive along with the organisms that practice them. There's no reason both rational and irrational behaviors can't coexist with the same species as long as they help the organism survive. It's just a matter of determining whether they are in fact necessary to the survival or just vestigial. We're just lucky we've evolved to the point where we can understand all of this and can come to the objective conclusion that religion is an unnecessary holdover from when whatever function it previously served was no longer useful for the same purpose and it mutated into something unrecognizable and would be best if we abandoned it. The religious mind doesn't realize it but if their selection is the one that wins out (if they start flexing their muscles again and start killing infidels and unbelievers) they'll drive themselves to extinction because it's an inherently unsustainable means of doing anything. The fact that those who didn't let faith dominate their entire lives have been putting out their fires from the beginning doesn't mean that religion had something positive to provide towards survival value, it means that in spite of all the damage it's done, secular values are keeping the species from going under.

Essentially he and the OP are trying to push the EEAN. By making up absurd unrealistic scenario's that evolution would not favors. Or has no context in evolution(his stupid burger idea) .To prove that false idea's can be survivable. Mixed with the idea of trying to divorce math and logic from the realm they apply . All to push the baseless idea that a magic sky fairy can make a reliable mind.  While still ignoring why a god would create I brain needs to learn. everything from logic math etc or why it took thousands of years to think up said systems . rather then have them be pre programmed into us at conception.

---

Of course this will never satisfy the theist only a top down approach will do . Only a magic super mind can save us . it's foolish  it's dumb but they will insist on it.

Top down, huh? So who or what conjured up their super magic sky fairy?

Pretty much . Ether a so called perfect mind done it or it can't be relied on . Of course they need to assert it exists first .

[Astonished]

And the cheetah doesn't just say "OOH GAZELLE YUMZ TIME TA EAT!" They seek from afar, scouting, searching for the weak one that can be preyed upon the most easily. Same with animals at the watering hole; they look around carefully so that when they're at their most vulnerable, they aren't going to be caught unawares. These may not be genetic per se, but they are capable of learning them with whatever sort of brains they have, and the behaviors (memes, in the evolutionary sense) that lead to surviving, irrational or not, survive along with the organisms that practice them. There's no reason both rational and irrational behaviors can't coexist with the same species as long as they help the organism survive. It's just a matter of determining whether they are in fact necessary to the survival or just vestigial. We're just lucky we've evolved to the point where we can understand all of this and can come to the objective conclusion that religion is an unnecessary holdover from when whatever function it previously served was no longer useful for the same purpose and it mutated into something unrecognizable and would be best if we abandoned it. The religious mind doesn't realize it but if their selection is the one that wins out (if they start flexing their muscles again and start killing infidels and unbelievers) they'll drive themselves to extinction because it's an inherently unsustainable means of doing anything. The fact that those who didn't let faith dominate their entire lives have been putting out their fires from the beginning doesn't mean that religion had something positive to provide towards survival value, it means that in spite of all the damage it's done, secular values are keeping the species from going under.

Essentially he and the OP are trying to push the EEAN. By making up absurd unrealistic scenario's that evolution would not favors. Or has no context in evolution(his stupid burger idea) .To prove that false idea's can be survivable. Mixed with the idea of trying to divorce math and logic from the realm they apply . All to push the baseless idea that a magic sky fairy can make a reliable mind.  While still ignoring why a god would create I brain needs to learn. everything from logic math etc or why it took thousands of years to think up said systems . rather then have them be pre programmed into us at conception.

---

Top down, huh? So who or what conjured up their super magic sky fairy?

Pretty much . Ether a so called perfect mind done it or it can't be relied on . Of course they need to assert it exists first .

And to find a way to justify how it terminates the infinite regress without simply special pleading.

[Amarok]

Essentially he and the OP are trying to push the EEAN. By making up absurd unrealistic scenario's that evolution would not favors. Or has no context in evolution(his stupid burger idea) .To prove that false idea's can be survivable. Mixed with the idea of trying to divorce math and logic from the realm they apply . All to push the baseless idea that a magic sky fairy can make a reliable mind.  While still ignoring why a god would create I brain needs to learn. everything from logic math etc or why it took thousands of years to think up said systems . rather then have them be pre programmed into us at conception.

---

Pretty much . Ether a so called perfect mind done it or it can't be relied on . Of course they need to assert it exists first .

And to find a way to justify how it terminates the infinite regress without simply special pleading.

They will just assert divine revelation or the sensuous derpious or gods design . Even thou those all beg the question "how do you it's true" And again why would a good care about giving you truth . Without assuming he cares or values true over lies.

---

Another blow of course is the fact academia has already answered this objection for instance

De Cruz, H., M. Boudry, J. De Smedt, and S. Blancke. 2011. “Evolutionary Approaches to Epistemic Justification.”

or

Maarten Boudry and Michael Vlerick paper Natural Selection Does Care about Truth

Abstract

True beliefs are better guides to the world than false ones. This is the common-sense assumption that undergirds theorizing in evolutionary epistemology. According to Alvin Plantinga, however, evolution by natural selection does not care about truth: it cares only about fitness. If our cognitive faculties are the products of blind evolution, we have no reason to trust them, anytime or anywhere. Evolutionary naturalism, consequently, is a self-defeating position. Following up on earlier objections, we uncover three additional flaws in Plantinga's latest formulation of his argument: a failure to appreciate adaptive path dependency, an incoherent conception of content ascription, and a conflation of common-sense and scientific beliefs, which we diagnose as the ‘foundationalist fallacy’. More fundamentally, Plantinga's reductive formalism with respect to the issue of cognitive reliability is inadequate to deal with relevant empirical details

[ManofYesterday]

I can't believe how stupid all of you people are... it's fucking nuts.

Many of you don't believe in God or dislike religion for emotional reasons--and all of you have been brainwashed by contemporary society into thinking religion/God = Harry Potter. And when a person presents you with evidence or a good argument, you either ignore it completely, respond with snark, or talk amongst yourselves about "Sky Daddies," hand wave, or cheer lead: "You really got him good when you mentioned sky daddies!" Guys, you do realize that none of this is funny or amusing? You just make yourselves look stupid. All you're doing is demonstrating that you can't hang; you're unable to defend your world view.

Mix all of this with a subculture of people who do not read science or philosophy while pretending that they read science and philosophy--and you have the Atheist Forum.

And after everything that has been said, most of you still do not understand that evolution doesn't necessarily lead to brains that are predisposed to producing true beliefs. Part of the problem is you guys don't seem to know what "necessarily" means in logic.

A brain that is tuned for ascertaining truths and falsehoods doesn't necessarily follow from evolution. For instance, a mutation could be introduced into a species that negatively affects the cognitive faculties but nevertheless dramatically increases the survivability in that species through a different means. The mutation would then be passed down to later generations. Or a mutation could be introduced that produces a false belief, but the false belief increases survivability. "If you don't drink enough water, you'll explode" That's a false belief, but it would result in higher survivability. Moreover, a mutation could be introduced that would produce a false belief in the brain, but since the false belief doesn't affect the survivability of the species, it persists. So, millions of years later, a species may have numerous false beliefs--none of which negatively affected their surviability. Finally, it may be that our brains are very good at things like "stay away from spiders" or "don't jump off cliffs" but they aren't good at abstract concepts like mathematics and philosophy. This is because there's no chance for evolution to prefer or disprefer such abstract concepts. How could it? A caveman that is good at metaphysics isn't going to be able to run any faster from predators. If there is a positive effect in terms of surviability it would be negligible compared to a mutation that would, for instance, strengthen the legs allowing for a faster sprint.

Are none of you intelligent enough to follow the aforementioned points? Are none of you intelligent enough to rebut them?

[Succubus]

Are none of you intelligent enough to follow the aforementioned points? Are none of you intelligent enough to rebut them?

Rebut this: Your MO is to take the ban hammer topside of the head, then rush back to whatever happy clappy fundie site you usually frequent, and tell your fawning sycophants you were banned because no one could counter your devastating arguments.

Idiot fundie!