Is atheism self-contradictory ?

[Amarok]

An interesting piece by Richard Carrier vs Victor Repport  on this subject . It's kind of old but Vic essentially pulls the same argument yesman  does( only difference  is  Vics intelligent and not an asshole)

https://infidels.org/library/modern/rich....html#afrf

Particularly the chapter

We Should Attack Rocks?

---

gud negative  100.000,000

[Astonished]

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?

Wow, now I'm sorry I was so nice and took such a huge amount of time to deconstruct everything you said and show how it was a failure of understanding (and I notice you subsequently failed to address it, but we both know that's because you obviously can't refute it). Chow on a turd sandwich, you nitwit neanderthal. You think a psychiatrist reading what you wrote isn't making it transparent that you're exhibiting every kind of irrational behavior one can name? Projection, false equivocation, persistent delusions, not to mention short attention span, impatience and quick to anger over something trivial. You're just another casualty of religion's pernicious viral infection. Science forbid you ever get your tainted hooks into any child, especially your own (but please, do the right thing and don't breed.)

[downbeatplumb]

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.

I don't believe in god because it is a stupid child like idea. I used to think that people were all of roughly equal intelligence and then I started encountering theists and discovered that actually there are many complete morons in the world.

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.

Lets be clear we have a thing called "standards" you cant just claim something is sufficient evidence and then get all nasty when we don't find it convincing. It means you failed.

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.

I do read science but I don't read philosophy. but what I can say is this I have never believed in god. Not for a second of my life and have seen no reason to start. how can this be? Its because I am English and religion is kinda dying over here and has been for a loooong time.

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.

So what?

A brain that is tuned for ascertaining truths and falsehoods doesn't necessarily follow from evolution.

So what?

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.

Indeed Richard Dawkins used this very argument to explain the existence of the false belief of religions, they were memes that survived despite their obvious falsehood.

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.

Ah but a brain that is good at evading predators can also be good at metaphysics as by product. if a brain is capable of concepts then the concepts can expand and expand until you get computers and especially when you add language and storing information externally in other people or paper or the interwebz.

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.

But running isn't the only thing animals do though is it?

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

Rebut what exactly. You seem to be reinforcing the argument for no god.

[LadyForCamus]

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?

Wow, now I'm sorry I was so nice and took such a huge amount of time to deconstruct everything you said and show how it was a failure of understanding (and I notice you subsequently failed to address it, but we both know that's because you obviously can't refute it). Chow on a turd sandwich, you nitwit neanderthal. You think a psychiatrist reading what you wrote isn't making it transparent that you're exhibiting every kind of irrational behavior one can name? Projection, false equivocation, persistent delusions, not to mention short attention span, impatience and quick to anger over something trivial. You're just another casualty of religion's pernicious viral infection. Science forbid you ever get your tainted hooks into any child, especially your own (but please, do the right thing and don't breed.)

I'm willing to bet the ban hammer is near for this one.  ManofYesterday is going to be MemberUpUntilYesterday, by tomorrow.  

[Amarok]

My favorite part about him is he thinks that pulling made up scenario's out of a vacuum. And then ridiculing them is refuting our case. And ignoring the fact his own idea's can subjected to the same scenario as long as we ignore the wider context. Essentially the same mistake Alvin Plantinga keeps making which is why he still revising his silly tiger analogy . And why Victor does not do it anymore,.

[Astonished]

Wow, now I'm sorry I was so nice and took such a huge amount of time to deconstruct everything you said and show how it was a failure of understanding (and I notice you subsequently failed to address it, but we both know that's because you obviously can't refute it). Chow on a turd sandwich, you nitwit neanderthal. You think a psychiatrist reading what you wrote isn't making it transparent that you're exhibiting every kind of irrational behavior one can name? Projection, false equivocation, persistent delusions, not to mention short attention span, impatience and quick to anger over something trivial. You're just another casualty of religion's pernicious viral infection. Science forbid you ever get your tainted hooks into any child, especially your own (but please, do the right thing and don't breed.)

I'm willing to bet the ban hammer is near for this one.  ManofYesterday is going to be MemberUpUntilYesterday, by tomorrow.  

I'm a little disappointed about the amount of patience we have with some of the other obnoxious liars around here too. We should be able to recognize trolls pretty easily and shine the light on them. I mean, it's what killed the IMDB forums, for crying out loud.

[LadyForCamus]

I'm willing to bet the ban hammer is near for this one.  ManofYesterday is going to be MemberUpUntilYesterday, by tomorrow.  

I'm a little disappointed about the amount of patience we have with some of the other obnoxious liars around here too. We should be able to recognize trolls pretty easily and shine the light on them. I mean, it's what killed the IMDB forums, for crying out loud.

Sometimes it's hard to tell. Being obnoxious and being a liar are not technically against the rules. Shitting all over threads with insults and name calling, while at the same time failing to meaningfully engage in the actual discussion (which is how I, personally, perceive this particular person) does constitute trolling, if I understand the rule correctly. I'm not a mod though, so take what I say on the subject with a grain of salt.
The PTB will correct me if I've misspoken. [emoji41]

[LastPoet]

I'm a little disappointed about the amount of patience we have with some of the other obnoxious liars around here too. We should be able to recognize trolls pretty easily and shine the light on them. I mean, it's what killed the IMDB forums, for crying out loud.

Sometimes it's hard to tell.  Being obnoxious and being a liar are not technically against the rules.  Shitting all over threads with insults and name calling, while at the same time failing to meaningfully engage in the actual discussion (which is how I, personally, perceive this particular person) does constitute trolling, if I understand the rule correctly.   I'm not a mod though, so take what I say on the subject with a grain of salt.
The PTB will correct me if I've misspoken.  [emoji41]

"Who knows what gods think?" A liar.

[Amarok]

You know we have actual scientists on this forum, right?

Oh no all the scientists on here are fake apparently . Because they don't recognize Yesmens genius and are not willing to answer his every inane question nor spend time refuting a pop book or blog post by hawking. (thou refer to another scientist who does) .Or because they refuse to except an asserted claim about the majority view of physicists .Because Hawkings is clearly the only one who exists it's not Alan Guth exists or anything .

[Edwardo Piet]

Thanks for the video share, Hammy.  I think I agree with Rickles if I'm understanding him correctly.  To me, (a laymen on this, and most subjects) the question, "why is there something rather than nothing" is completely malformed and illogical.  It's an absurd proposition.  You're basically asking, "how come non-existence doesn't exist?"  I might as well ask, "Why does the purple smell hot?"  

YES! Exactly! Oh my gosh I'm so glad you get it! (Love ya LFC! ) Because you'll be surprised how many seemingly intelligent people are mentally blocked and can't grasp this for some reason! So many people, including philosophers, think that this is the ultimate question or even ultimately unanswerable. But the alternative is simply logically impossible!

As he explains in the video... many philosophers understand how silly the question is but many don't actually understand why it's silly they just categorize it as a non-question that isn't true or false when the reality is that there is a true or false answer and it's that the truth of there being at least something existent is a necessity and the falsehood of it is an impossibility!

There is an answer... it's just not as mysterious as a lot of people want it to be. It really is logically impossible for reality to not exist. This particular reality may not have occurred, but some sort of reality must... even if it were a reality experienced by no one or a simulated reality that we considered 'unreal'. And if the concept of an unreal reality is considered a contradiction then an equivocation has been made because I am meaning reality merely in the sense of the totality of existence itself... regardless of how real or unreal that existence is.

---

I think the human-constructed concept of absolute nothingness is completely irrational at its core.  'Non-being' cannot be a thing.

Yep. When people ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" they may as well be asking "Why are squares four sided instead of circular?" "Or why are bachelors unmarried instead of married?"  or "Why is X not X?" or in other words: "Why is something itself rather than something else?"... like when people ask "Why am I me?" so they're asking a question regarding particulars and asking for its cause... but they're then also trying to apply it to the universal totality of existence itself which isn't a particular!

The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" therefore, can only make sense if it refers to a particular something, or in other words, and in this case, a particular universe. So if the question means to ask "Why does this particular universe exist?" or even "Why do any universes begin to exist (i.e. why to Big Bangs happen) rather than stay existent in a vacuum-like state that is almost entirely empty?" (i.e. any sort of quantum state isn't complete emptiness or it wouldn't be a quantum state... it wouldn't be.... anything)..... but asking why anything exists at all as opposed to absolute nothingness makes zero sense. Because absolute nothingness is indeed impossible because it by definition doesn't refer to the possibility of anything at all!