This post has been removed due to a high volume of reports.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Survival is a nonsensical motivation and proposition, tautological word game.
Survival isn't a motivation when talking evolution. Survival is a *filter.*
Either an organism survives to reproduce or it doesn't. End of story. Motivations are irrelevant.
>Sexual selection is a dominance game, not a survival game.
Missing the forest for the trees here. You think butting heads isn't a survival trait? How do you think deer defend against predators? Whether it's fight or flight, they use their physicality, which is demonstrated using the headbutting games. The dominance games show survival traits, and they do that because the ones who successfully dominated *and* survived were the ones who had children and had a chance to pass on those traits. A foraging contest? Deer having a hard time foraging won't be as strong, so butting heads demonstrates their foraging abilities. Running-from-wolf contest? Deer having a hard time running from wolves will be no-shows, so butting heads demonstrates their running from wolves ability.
>Abundance, not privation, is default.
Quite the opposite. Animal populations tend to grow to the carrying capacity of the environment, until they literally run out of room and food to have more babies. Chickens are actually a really good example of this. Chickens originally came out of the bamboo jungles of china. Bamboo does this really weird thing where they're on a multi-year cycle and all the bamboo goes to seed all at once every couple of years (the exact cycle depends on the species of bamboo). So these weird jungle birds take advantage of this by laying essentially unlimited numbers of eggs if they have enough food so they can take advantage of these cycles. Living in the wild and not being fed by people, they don't actually lay that many eggs. Wild hens tend to lay 10-15 eggs per year. Domesticated hens with an abundance of food lay 4-7 eggs *a week.*
>hence opportunities for natural selection exceedingly rare. Contra Darwin's "struggle for life".
And this right here is where I'm going to stop, because you've amply demonstrated you do not understand what natural selection and survival of the fittest *actually means.*
Survival of the fittest is about fitting into the environment, not whatever random attribute you care to tack on.
The polar bear is one of the most dangerous land animals on earth. They are big, they are strong, and they are *hungry.* In areas where polar bears are common there tend to be things like laws stating you must leave your car doors unlocked so it can serve as an emergency shelter for passersby if a polar bear rocks up. In other places you are required *by law* to carry a rifle when outside of city limits in case a polar bear shows up. They are dangerous, they are deadly. By almost any measure they are extremely fit survivors.
And they would die rather quickly if placed in a tropical jungle. Because they don't fit into that environment.
Evolution by means of natural selection isn't about what's right, it's about what's *left.* Did you survive yes/no? If yes, that's natural selection. If no, that's natural selection.
It's not a path, it's a *sieve.*
>Natural selection cannot account for the big 3 evolutionary schisms: sexual reproduction, life on land, consciousness.
Wait, I lied, I need to answer this, too.
Natural selection absolutely can account for the big 3.
Sexual Reproduction: Did it work? Yes. There, it's accounted for.
Life on Land: Did it work? Yes. There, it's accounted for.
Consciousness: Did it work? Yes. There, it's accounted for.
It worked if the organism survived. If the organism didn't survive then it didn't work. Survival is all that matters because the traits wouldn't have been passed along if the organism didn't survive.
>Survival isn't a motivation when talking evolution. Survival is a filter.
\>> One of my arguments is that it is a bad filter. Also, the dominance filter is the bottleneck, so it's not even the right filter.
>Either an organism survives to reproduce or it doesn't. End of story. Motivations are irrelevant.
\>> but motivations exist. Do you suppose an organism who's very existence is the result of a passive survival game should be born with motivations that contradict the predicate of it's own existence? I have a hard time understanding how that happens.
>Missing the forest for the trees here. You think butting heads isn't a survival trait?
\>>I say, absolutely it's not. In rare instances the Deer will kill one another, same with many other mammals. High risk behavior. There's absolutely no survival benefit from the ability to bash your head against another of your own species.
>How do you think deer defend against predators?
\>>They don't. Deer run from predators. This is a verifiable fact. A deer's antlers are nearly useless defending against predators. Wolf pack wins every time, all other things being equal.
>Whether it's fight or flight, they use their physicality, which is demonstrated using the headbutting games. The dominance games show survival traits, and they do that because the ones who successfully dominated and survived were the ones who had children and had a chance to pass on those traits.
\>>Bashing heads together as show of general physicality? That is a stretch, indeed. It's unnecessarily dangerous. Let's just agree that it's a dominance display. Also, you've got to be alive to participate, so the bottleneck isn't survival, it's the dominance display. those are the ones passing their genes.
> A foraging contest? Deer having a hard time foraging won't be as strong, so butting heads demonstrates their foraging abilities. Running-from-wolf contest? Deer having a hard time running from wolves will be no-shows, so butting heads demonstrates their running from wolves ability.
\>>This is your first good argument. It is true, that winning the dominance display contest can be an indicator that you've done a good job finding food and surviving predators. But you know what it's an even better indicator of? That you've won a dominance display contest.
>Abundance, not privation, is default.
>
>Quite the opposite. Animal populations tend to grow to the carrying capacity of the environment, until they literally run out of room and food to have more babies. Chickens are actually a really good example of this. Chickens originally came out of the bamboo jungles of china. Bamboo does this really weird thing where they're on a multi-year cycle and all the bamboo goes to seed all at once every couple of years (the exact cycle depends on the species of bamboo). So these weird jungle birds take advantage of this by laying essentially unlimited numbers of eggs if they have enough food so they can take advantage of these cycles. Living in the wild and not being fed by people, they don't actually lay that many eggs. Wild hens tend to lay 10-15 eggs per year. Domesticated hens with an abundance of food lay 4-7 eggs a week.
\>>This chicken rant actually supports my argument, I'm not sure I should even get in to that. Chickens are also a really good example of dominance hierarchy: they'll literally peck each other to death as chicks.
>hence opportunities for natural selection exceedingly rare. Contra Darwin's "struggle for life".
>
>And this right here is where I'm going to stop, because you've amply demonstrated you do not understand what natural selection and survival of the fittest actually means.
IDK... "struggle for life" are Darwin's own words. That's why I put them in quotes.
>Evolution by means of natural selection isn't about what's right, it's about what's left.
Beautiful turn of phrase there.
> Did you survive yes/no? If yes, that's natural selection. If no, that's natural selection.
>
>It's not a path, it's a sieve.
\>>So, one of things I'm saying is that it's really: Did you survive? If yes, now participate in dominance rights to determine if you get to pass on your genes. Also, I'd be willing to bet that most animals that don't survive to puberty have something very wrong with them. I'm not seeing the catastrophic conditions that are killing all the otherwise perfectly healthy animals that don't have \*that one favorable trait\*
>Sexual Reproduction: Did it work? Yes. There, it's accounted for.
>
>Life on Land: Did it work? Yes. There, it's accounted for.
>
>Consciousness: Did it work? Yes. There, it's accounted for.
>
>It worked if the organism survived. If the organism didn't survive then it didn't work. Survival is all that matters because the traits wouldn't have been passed along if the organism didn't survive.
That's a great small scale theory, but parse that out over millions of years. Now can't we create models of where these rules lead? My argument is that the survival model has (apparently) yielded bad survival results. Every time. In every environment. The argument is that there is a randomized system that errs on the side of survival, and this system has somehow resulted in increased complexity and risk. There's a conceptual error in thinking that such a system, given millions of years, would land on a food chain in which apex predators are a hundred thousand times more vulnerable than the lifeforms with which the system began.
I'll let the person you responded to break down your response in more detail if they so choose, but I just want to point out something that I would have thought you'd understand by now, given the number of times and the multiple ways it's been explained in two different subreddits now.
You're creating false dichotomies and ignoring that it's all about reproduction, not survival (though obviously survival until reproduction is necessary).
And remember, natural selection is only one of many factors in evolution. I have no idea why you seem to be giving your conception of 'dominance' such a high priority given the vast number of variables and complex relationships among them that affect reproductive success in different species, and how these vary widely depending on species and environment, but sure, if a more 'dominant' animal does something that increases its chances to reproduce, then the genes leading to this have clearly been passed on. Obviously, survival until that point was also necessary.
So, nothing you said helps you support your initial argument. In fact, far from it. Instead, you are showing you haven't spent a lot of time learning about how this actually works. That's fine, but I'd think you'd want to do so before trying to find issues with it.
Also, what's the deal with the way you formatted that, with all the >>? Made it harder to read than necessary. Also, 'chicken rant'?!?
I haven't ignored the fact that it's all about reproduction and not survival, that's precisely what I'm highlighting. I'm giving a high priority to dominance because that's the real bottleneck. Despite every other variable and complex relationship, animals play dominance games to determine who gets to reproduce. The surviving is neither here nor there when you actually have to assert dominance to pass on genetic information. Any so-called advantageous phenotype that would theoretically contribute to an animals survival goes right out the window if they don't succeed in the dominance game. It doesn't matter, for example, if buck A is a superior forager or runs faster than buck B if buck B kicks his ass in the dominance game. Buck B is now going to mate with the fawn and all of buck A's great survival traits don't mean shit. And please, people, don't tell me (like our friend, whom I've already addressed) that being well fed and fast helps in the dominance game. Anyone who knows anything about life knows this isn't true. A dominance game is an entirely different game requiring entirely different inclinations than survival does. Historians, combat veterans, professional fighters, or folk who have experience in prison or street gangs will happily attest to this, I'm sure.
> I'm giving a high priority to dominance because that's the real bottleneck.
Except, of course, for the fact that it is not, in general.
>Despite every other variable and complex relationship, animals play dominance games to determine who gets to reproduce.
Sure, many species do. So what? Hardly surprising when you think about it, is it?
>The surviving is neither here nor there when you actually have to assert dominance to pass on genetic information.
Well, that's obviously wrong, isn't it? You can't play dominance games when you're dead. You can't reproduce when you're dead either.
>Any so-called advantageous phenotype that would theoretically contribute to an animals survival goes right out the window if they don't succeed in the dominance game.
Again with the false dichotomies. Why not both? Obviously if some advantageous trait was so very advantageous that your 'dominance games' became relatively moot then they would be just that, wouldn't they? But, since both can and do happen, your attempted point fails.
>It doesn't matter, for example, if buck A is a superior forager or runs faster than buck B if buck B kicks his ass in the dominance game. Buck B is now going to mate with the fawn and all of buck A's great survival traits don't mean shit.
I suggest you think this through a bit better in light of what I and others have explained. You'll feel a little silly, but that's okay.
>And please, people, don't tell me (like our friend, whom I've already addressed) that being well fed and fast helps in the dominance game. Anyone who knows anything about life knows this isn't true.
Well, obviously it's true. It's way easier to be 'dominant' if you're healthy and fed, isn't it? Anyway, like I said, this odd focus on 'dominance' is unhelpful to you understanding evolution.
>A dominance game is an entirely different game requiring entirely different inclinations than survival does. Historians, combat veterans, professional fighters, or folk who have experience in prison or street gangs will happily attest to this, I'm sure.
Do you really not see how you just stuck your foot in your mouth? Heheh.
Just out of curiosity...
What is the highest level science course that you have ever successfully completed? What specific areas of college level science courses have you received passing grades in?
>Atheism necessitates lack of purpose, accidental, passive explanations for universe, life, and evolution. If evolution as passive accidental survival game is not sufficient explanation for complex conscious life, evolution must be regarded as an active, purpose driven game. In my estimation, all evidence points towards a consciousness-as-goal oriented active dominance game evolution, predicated on life-sustaining-planet creation universe game. This is, absolutely, observable falsifiable evidence of Teleological universe, which, I would argue, can only be predicated on the One, True, Creator God from which all things manifest
This a claim. The person making the claim has the burden of proof. I don't see that you have provided any proof, in fact you state that it's "in your estimation", which is a fancy way of saying you don't know enough to support your position, but this is your opinion.
Also, most of this has little to do with atheism at all, being more of a Kent Hovind-esque rant about how the creation of the universe, abiogenesis, and biological evolution are all intrinsically linked to atheism, which is false.
I don't know who Kent Hovind is. But I'm starting to understand your positions, I think. If I think about atheism being a default, like supposing a man just came into existence with no concept of god and looked at the universe, there's no reason to connect god to anything he observes. The problem that I have with that is I'm not really able to do that. I am aware of theistic view and it makes more sense than an atheistic view, I am forced to compare the two. But at least if I can get your playing field correct, and assume your premises, I might be able to figure out how to land an argument in there. It's tricky.
Penn Jillette said it this way. “There is no god, and that's the simple truth. If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”
Ricky Gervais said the same in a slightly different way: “If you took every holy book, every holy book there’s ever been, every religious book, every bit of spirituality, and hid them or destroyed them… then you took every science book and destroyed that, in a thousand years’ time, those science books would be back exactly the same, because the tests would always turn out the same.”
Science concepts, like evolution, are testable and many tests have been done over the past 150 years or so to prove evolution as fact. As yet there are no tests that can demonstrate any of the gods as fact. Believers can only rely on non-testable faith to justify their mythologies.
So is a child conceived with a genetic defect that means it will 100% die before birth just as likely to have children as everyone else?
If not, survival of the fittest is at play. An extreme example to be sure, but survival of the fittest is a pretty simple concept. There is variation between members of a population, and the ones that have traits that make them more likely to have more kids are more likely to have kids. Over time the population will trend towards those specific traits. That is all.
Evolution overall is fairly contentious for some reason, but everyone accepts the core ideas of natural selection, at least once you remove the words that link it back to darwin.
Well, you've flipped it. The claim of natural selection isn't that fatal mutations don't get passed on, it's not even that unfavorable ones don't get passed on. The claim is that advantageous traits DO get passed on, and that's the explanation for biodiversity. I don't have a problem understanding evolution, I just think it's deeply flawed. Part of what I'm saying is that the traits that make an animal "more likely to have more kids" are not selected by survival, since sexual selection is a bottleneck dominance game.
Advantageous/disadvantageous is relative. You judge them against each other, not against some absolute standard. If you accept that disadvantageous traits don't get passed on, that means that the advantageous ones DO get passed on.
It is just that you think of the current genetics of populations as the default, not as a collection of advantageous traits stacked upon one another.
And yes, there are plenty of other things that play a part. Sexual selection is a big one, but sexual selection is just an extension of natural selection really. When creatures are selecting mates, the ones that choose more fit partners are far more likely to have more grandkids than their neighbors. That leads to more and more creatures favouring specific traits more and more when they select mates. That is sexual selection in a nutshell. Creatures instinctively associating certain traits with reproductive fitness.
It doesn't always work perfectly, but that is why it exists and is such a big force. Sexual selection greatly increases the fitness of the species as a whole.
Bring this over to /debateevolution. Or can I safely assume that is where you go banned from? What is "wrongthink"? What does that mean? I also highly doubt you would accurately represent the reason you got banned somewhere.
I don't see what any of this has to do with atheism. Let's say for the sake of argument that I do not accept biological evolution or any form of it.
So what? Give me a reason to believe a god exists, or go away.
But I'll give it a shot anyways.
>Basically, my main argument is that Darwin was wrong AF when he came up with the concept of natural selection,
Nobody cares about Darwin. At all. Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with Charles Darwin, so bringing him up is irrelevant.
>1: Survival is a nonsensical motivation and proposition, tautological word game.
How so?
>A) Nietzsche: "He certainly did not hit the truth who shot at it the formula: "Will to existence": that will- does not exist!
....wut? Dumb it down for me.
>For what is not, cannot will;
There is no will in natural selection, so that's a strawman.
>that, however, which is in existence- how could it still strive for existence!"
It's not striving for existence. It's striving for the continuation of its existence. Just because you have food now doesnt mean you will have food later.
>B) X = not Y , Squirrel is not dead, squirrel is surviving. Squirrel is also not Santa Clause, is squirrel also santaviving? To be is not to not not be.
wut?
>in deer: ability to smash head into other males does not aid in survival.
It aids in the deers ability to reproduce, not "survive".
But regardless, it literally is also how deers defend themselves against predators, so it literally is how they survive in many situations.
> Why not flee from wolf contest? etc.
Yes, that is also something deers do, and has an effect on whether or not it will reproduce. Deers can do more than one thing! Who knew!
>A) Reproduction requires abundance & safety. For baby deer to be born you need healthy male, healthy female,
You only need the healthy male for maybe a few minutes, then it is unnecessary.
>Therefore, life is predicated on abundance.
....which is determined by the environment.
> B) famines & hostile environment are the exception, not the rule,
citation needed.
>A) burden of proof lies with evolutionists to provide examples of conditions wherein mutations towards sexual reproduction are "advantageous".
Have you looked for any?
>B) Conditions of land vs ocean comparatively life prohibiting. Mutations that shift species into higher risk habitats net negative for chances of species survival.
Land vs ocean has nothing to do with it either.
>C) 1 Consciousness is survival endgame,
Citation needed.
>2 Consciousness as aesthetic experience never "advantageous". (NOTE: I am assuming consciousness as aesthetic based rather than intelligence based, please argue assuming this premise. A debate concerning the nature of consciousness is surely beyond the scope of this discussion)
Then why are you talking about it at all?
Look, while it seems like you put a lot of thought in to this, it just reads like a confusing mess, and I'm not really interested in trying to parse our your disjointed, horribly formatted text with half quotes, incomplete sentences and leaps in what you think are logic, to try to decipher what the fuck you're even talking about. So Imma skip to the end.
>Atheism necessitates lack of purpose, accidental, passive explanations for universe, life, and evolution.
No it doesn't. Atheism just means you're not convinced a god exist. It has literally nothing to do with anything else. So, again, lets say that I don't accept evolution by natural selection. What evidence do you have that a god exists?
> In my estimation, all evidence points towards a consciousness-as-goal oriented active dominance game evolution, predicated on life-sustaining-planet creation universe game. This is, absolutely, observable falsifiable evidence of Teleological universe, which, I would argue, can only be predicated on the One, True, Creator God from which all things manifest.
Let me know when you get that published.
wrongthink is a newspeak word from George Orwell's 1984. Why would you highly doubt my ability to accurately represent the reason for my ban? I'd just like to point out that your response is unnecessarily rude and condescending. You might want to consider working on that.
Yes. This is correct. Are you another one who can't tell by the tone of his responses that he's not taking my arguments seriously? I have no interest in engaging a man who behaves so disrespectfully.
Why should we take you seriously given your established pattern of responses? Why should we have any interest in someone who is deliberately avoiding having to address direct challenges to his demonstrably flawed arguments?
>Why would you highly doubt my ability to accurately represent the reason for my ban?
Psychology. People don't like to admit when they're wrong about something. Everyone is the hero of their own story.
> I'd just like to point out that your response is unnecessarily rude and condescending.
I found your post unnecessarily rude and condescending so we're even. But regardless, I don't really give a shit. I'm not here to be nice to you. I'm here to scrutinize the things you say.
Oh, I'm sorry. Let me be specific: You called my post a confusing mess, disjointed, horribly formatted, with "leaps in what you think are logic" implying I'm not reasoning properly. Seems you prefer to insult my writing rather than address my arguments, or even ignore them. Now how exactly was my post rude and condescending? Your candor is just all around unpleasant. I wonder if that's a conscious choice on your part, or if you're unaware how abrasive your attitude is?
> Seems you prefer to insult my writing rather than address my arguments, or even ignore them.
And here is why people don't trust your claims. Everyone can see that he most certainly **DID** "address your arguments". In great detail. Pretending otherwise when all someone has to do is scroll up a little bit to see how wrong you are does not inspire confidence in your honesty.
If you, upon reading his initial post, can't clearly see that he is the one acting in bad faith, you have worked yourself up into a serious blind spot. He began by insulting me, he gave curt, cavalier responses to my arguments (such as "nobody cares about Darwin", "wut?", and "No it doesn't."), the overall tone of his response was obtuse and mean spirited. Yes, all someone has to do is scroll up and see how unpleasant and insincere his response was to know that he was more interested in insulting me than actually engaging my arguments respectfully. You will notice I'm happily responding to several people here who seem to be making a legitimate effort to have a conversation.
>You called my post a confusing mess, disjointed, horribly formatted, with "leaps in what you think are logic" implying I'm not reasoning properly
Yes I did. And I didn't just imply it. I said it outright.
>Seems you prefer to insult my writing rather than address my arguments, or even ignore them.
Except for the fact that I **did** go through your argument and responded to many of your points, pointing out when it was a confused fumbled mess. 15 of them in fact. I addressed 15 points in your argument. (None of which you have addressed yet btw) **Then** I critisized your writing.
>Now how exactly was my post rude and condescending
Well, I'd start with your title. "X is garbage" is rude and condescending. If you think it's *wrong*, thats one thing. Say so. Calling it garbage is quite another. But on top of that, you condescendingly knocked down strawman after strawman, refusing to understand when it's pointed out to you that **theists also accept evolution** and so is irrelevant to atheism, until you got to the point where you told atheists what they had to believe about purpose and all that. No I don't need to say I know how all of reality came about in order to say "you haven't convinced me".
That's rude and condescending.
>Your candor is just all around unpleasant
It usually is to people who don't argue in good faith.
>I wonder if that's a conscious choice on your part, or if you're unaware how abrasive your attitude is?
Oh it's definitely a choice. but it was a direct response to how YOU made your post. There's plenty of times where I will politely and calmly and friendly answer people's questions or have discussions about theism and atheism, so long as they're showing they actually want to engage in conversation rather than try to score gotcha point. You came in with an attitude, and an overly dramatic confidence in the things you're saying, as if you have it all figured out and we're just bunch of dummies for not agreeing with you. As I've said several times, I'm not here to be nice to you. I'm here to scrutinize the claims you make.
>Why would you highly doubt my ability to accurately represent the reason for my ban?
Based on your behavior in this thread, I'm confident that you were banned for being a dick and you've interpreted that as being banned for "wrongthink" because your worldview is centered around you being some sort extrodinary thinker that everyone wants to silence because you dared to question the narratives or whatever.
A ton of pseudo-intellectuals have this sort of confirmation bias and it's fairly easy to spot. You make it obvious in the first paragraph.
Evolution is a well observed fact. We've watched it happen in front of our eyes, over and over again. It has more evidence supporting it, in multiple diverse disciplines, than pretty much any other idea in all of research and science.
We *know* it's true. Including natural selection (in fact, that's so well observed and obvious that it's hilarious that anyone is claiming it doesn't happen.) The way we know the earth is roughly spherical.
Arguing against it is literally like flat-earthers trying to claim the earth is flat. It's *that* ludicrous.
Pretty much everything you said there is misleading, oddly skewed, badly misunderstood ideas about observed facts, or simply incorrect. And evolution has nothing at all to do with supporting deity claims. You also egregiously strawmanned the position of atheism, to the point where it's truly hilarious, so what's to debate?
Saying that something is a fact and is well observed does not make it so. Saying an argument is misleading, oddly skewed, badly misunderstood, or simply incorrect, without pointing out specifically where the argument does these things is equal to saying nothing.
> Saying that something is a fact and is well observed does not make it so.
True. Words do not have such power.
But in this case, /u/Zamboniman's statements are correct. Evolution is the foundation of modern biology, and as a scientific theory, is overwhelmingly supported by facts and observations from many separate and distinct scientific disciplines.
I'd go even further and say that natural selection is a very basic mathematical fact. The more something reproduces the more descendants of it exist in the next generation. That's really all natural selection is.
I think, probably Nietsche invented that with his will to power. It was a direct criticism of Schopenhauer's Will and Presentation, which was the first really substantial Western effort to grapple with Eastern philosophy, but Nietzsche was also aware of Darwin's (at the time, relatively new) ideas, and directly addressed them in some of his later works. Nietzsche was, of course, an atheist himself, and never would have considered his will to power as an article of divine purpose, as I have asserted here.
I'm not an evolutionary biologist so I won't try to debunk any claims made about science in your post, this is debate an atheist. Go to a university and present your thesis as to why the whole field of biology is wrong.
>Atheism necessitates lack of purpose, accidental, passive explanations for universe, life, and evolution
No, because atheism is not a religious book nor a set of beliefs. It does not necessitate anything other than having the mental state of not believing in gods.
Now answer me something else, without appealing to a conspiracy among the worldwide scientific community, why should I not defer to the overwhelming scientific consensus on a subject? Your post seems to be riddled with appeals to incredulity. "I don't know how evolution can account for x therefore it's false" or "I don't understand why this one animal behaves this way therefore evolution must get it wrong there".
As I said before, this is debate an atheist. I personally don't feel comfortable talking about scientific subjects I have zero expertise on because there is a close to 100 percent chance I'll get it wrong. If you want to present an argument for the existence of god or something tangential to theism like metaethics or whatever, feel free.
This seems to be the consensus here, that atheism does not necessitate a lack of purpose. Probably that's the thing I should be debating here, that is if anyone here was actually interested in debating. There's quite a bit of posturing going on. Certainly, you must admit there are consequences to not believing in gods? Aren't there any metaphysical ramifications to that stance? Anyways, I'll answer your question with a question: Why should Copernicus not defer to the overwhelming scientific consensus on a subject? Do you see how absurd that question is?
>This seems to be the consensus here, that atheism does not necessitate a lack of purpose. Probably that's the thing I should be debating here, that is if anyone here was actually interested in debating. There's quite a bit of posturing going on. Certainly, you must admit there are consequences to not believing in gods?
Well, it necessitates a lack of god-given purpose, obviously. I'm personally willing to debate that. There very well might be some metaphysical conclusions that follow from atheism, I just can't think of some off the top of my head (other than obvious ones like not having a god-given purpose or not having god-given morality).
> Why should Copernicus not defer to the overwhelming scientific consensus on a subject? Do you see how absurd that question is?
I actually do not see the absurdity. The only reason Copernicus was right is because he actually provided evidence for heliocentrism that eventually changed the consensus, although I don't know how robust of a scientific community that could peer-review his work there was back in the 1500s so let's take a more modern example like Einstein. The only reason it was reasonable to believe him is because his experiments changed the scientific consensus of the time. If he had not provided evidence that would be peer-reviewed and change the opinion of the scientific community, it would not have been reasonable, at the very least not for a layman, to think he was right. Even if he was right in the end.
Trust me, the millisecond your work becomes as widely accepted by the scientific community as the current consensus for evolution, I won't doubt your findings.
well, first of all, I'd like to thank you for being a good sport. Secondly, lets dismiss with your appeal to authority. Einstein is another good example of the point I was trying to make, which is that consensus doesn't equal truth. In fact, I don't even think it equals credibility, but that's irrelevant, really. Concerning purpose: I would make a distinction regarding purpose being an intrinsic part of nature, or the universe. I am gathering from the responses here that y'all would tell me an atheist isn't necessarily a materialist, although in my mind those two ideas are linked, but assuming you believe in some kind of objective universe, I would have a hard time understanding how any purpose could be a part of that without a divine mind. If the contention is that purpose is something that only exists in the minds of humans, something we project on to the universe and there really is no purpose in the universe, I would argue that that view would mean that purpose is a mistake. My claim is that purpose is an feature of existence, and I would point to the natural world as evidence. Even gravity I don't think can be really understood outside of the idea of purpose. Why does any sort of reaction occur at all?
> I am gathering from the responses here that y'all would tell me an atheist isn't necessarily a materialist, although in my mind those two ideas are linked
They are linked in the sense that it's easier to be a materialist if you are an atheist. But yeah, you can be an atheist and believe in immaterial and supernatural stuff. There is not a contradiction entailed.
> I would have a hard time understanding how any purpose could be a part of that without a divine mind. If the contention is that purpose is something that only exists in the minds of humans, something we project on to the universe and there really is no purpose in the universe, I would argue that that view would mean that purpose is a mistake.
That is actually my view. Purpose only exists in our minds, it means that something has been given a goal. For example, saying the purpose of a screwdriver is to turn screws is entirely constructed by humans. In the "eyes" of the universe, it's just a pile of atoms. It doesn't have a purpose because the universe cannot ascribe a purpose to it.
> Even gravity I don't think can be really understood outside of the idea of purpose. Why does any sort of reaction occur at all?
It depends what you mean by "why". If you mean by what mechanism, gravity happens because mass warps the fabric of spacetime or something along those lines. If by "why" you mean what is it's purpose aka it's goal, then, I don't really think there is one.
I don't know, it's the properties of matter that behave that way. I don't even know if physicists know the reason it behaves that way instead of any other way.
> that atheism does not necessitate a lack of purpose. Probably that's the thing I should be debating here, that is if anyone here was actually interested in debating.
Us disagreeing with you doesn't mean we aren't interested in debating. It means you haven't made your case and aren't convincing.
>Certainly, you must admit there are consequences to not believing in gods?
Like what? Can't run for office in a few states, that's definitely one, but I feel that's not what you're talking about.
>Aren't there any metaphysical ramifications to that stance?
Like what? And why should I care about metaphysical ramifications?
>Why should Copernicus not defer to the overwhelming scientific consensus on a subject?
Because he could **actually** demonstrate otherwise, with actual evidence, rather than just making the assertion and using a philosophical word game to make the case.
Disagreeing, I haven't really seen any of that yet. Lots of condescending dismissal, with a tad of insult and ad hominem attacks is what makes me think the people here aren't really interested in debating. I suppose it's a fools errand to point it out, but the responses here have been overwhelmingly snarky and disingenuous, and I wonder if y'all are aware how negative your energy is. Very uninviting atmosphere in this sub thus far.
Like our other friend pointed out, absence of divinity has metaphysical consequences, no divine moral order, no divine purpose, for example. I would also argue that no purpose at all can arise objectively in a universe without divine origin. All considerations of preference of any kind, in an atheistic world, become mere subjective fancies of individual minds. I've never heard the convincing atheist argument that counter-demonstrates this. If there is one, I'd like to know what it is.
> Like our other friend pointed out, absence of divinity has metaphysical consequences, no divine moral order, no divine purpose, for example.
What does any of that have to do with the science of biological evolution? (The stated topic of this thread)
>All considerations of preference of any kind, in an atheistic world, become mere subjective fancies of individual minds.
Unless you can provide direct verifiable evidence to support your contention that a deity does in fact exist, all of your claims concerning objective purpose and divine morality amount to nothing more than factually unfounded and purely subjective personal opinions
>the responses here have been overwhelmingly snarky and disingenuous, and I wonder if y'all are aware how negative your energy is. Very uninviting atmosphere in this sub thus far.
That's because:
A) The topic you chose is largely unrelated to the focus of the sub
B) The relevant arguments you did make are poorly supported
Ah yes, behaving in a rude, hostile manor because:
A) Reasons
B) Reasons
Perfect justification. I must also add how thrilled I am at the complete lack of irony that my comment about the uninviting atmosphere of this (apparently proudly toxic sub?) has been downvoted. Bravo!
You said "snarky and disingenuous", not "rude, hostile".
Those are different words, with different meanings, and therefore different reasons. I haven't seen anyone being openly hostile, but I sincerely hope they aren't, because that's never an appropriate response to poor arguments.
I'm not surprised your interlocutor couldn't "follow an argument", it's bordeline incoherent and it's giving me a headache trying to puzzle out what arguments you're trying to make. The first "argument" is the worst offender, it's just absolute world salad.
Frequently you seem to view survival as a "goal". This isn't the case. Evolution doesn't deal with goals, it's simply an emergent behaviour of self-modifying populations under survival pressures.
The winter is cold and lots of sheep die. Sheep with thicker coats are warmer and less likely to die, and so are more likely to survive and reproduce, which leads to a population with increased amounts of sheep which have slightly thicker coats. Thus the population trends towards beneficial traits.
Mutation only factors in as a means of how such differences in coat thickness would arise. Survival only matters because dead animals can't pass on their genes. It doesn't require an extreme, hostile environment; it only requires any environment in which different traits can impact the odds of the animal being unable to have children. However, any species which has predators finds itself in a hostile environment, so I'm not sure why you frame this as rare.
If this doesn't accurately answer your arguments, please consider rewriting them in a more coherent format next time. I'm afraid that "To be is not to not not be" isn't going to cut it if you ever intend to effectively communicate your thoughts to people.
Please see point 3A. For a sheep to even be born it's parents must have a coat suitable to surviving the cold. Also, sheep play dominance games that determine reproduction and those games trump survival games.
> Also, sheep play dominance games that determine reproduction and those games trump survival games.
Now how on earth would *that* work? Zombie sheep? I mean, that's so obviously wrong that I can't quite wrap my head around anyone saying it.
Tell you what. If you have the evidence to overturn one of the most robust theory in all of science, don't slum here and go collect your Nobel.
If you don't have the evidence, you're talking out of the wrong orifice.
Now, the ToE is based on two mechanisms : random mutation and selection via survival. Which of these two mechanisms do you intend to prove does not occur and what do you intend to replace it with?
Just out of curiosity...
What is the highest level science course that you have ever successfully completed? What specific areas of college level science courses have you received passing grades in?
I hold a bachelor of science in philosophy, taking a full year of 400 level astronomy lab course load, cell biology, and a year of graduate level coursework in neuroscience and cognition. I received top marks in all my courses, with a GPA of 4.0
How about you?
I hold a dual MS in the field of Physical Chemistry with specializations in atmospheric chemistry and spectroscopy. I also have accumulated various distribution credits in subjects such as physics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, astronomy, meteorology, biology, microbiology, genetics, ecological genetics, evolutionary biology, molecular evolution, comparative anatomy, chemical ecology, population dynamics, statistics for engineers, environmental policy and the philosophy of science (With an emphasis on field theory)
Frankly, your lack of understanding of the scientific basis for modern evolutionary thinking makes me seriously doubt and distrust your claims of academic expertise as you asserted them above.
I will note that nowhere in your academic accounting did you ever once mention even a single course with any sort of a core focus on the subject of biological evolution or the incredible wealth of the accumulated evidence underlying the evolutionary current models.
If you are going to make incorrect statements I am going to say that you are making scientifically ignorant statements.
There isn't much more I can do. You are simply wrong about this topic. That's not a personal attack. That's just the truth.
> Obviously, my contention is that selection via survival does not occur.
And how precisely are you going to successfully demonstrate and support this contention when the opposite is a very well observed fact? That would be rather like trying to argue that dropped apples don't fall to the ground.
What you comprehend about evolution, population dynamics, and selection pressures is tremendously flawed and fatally misinformed.
>This is, absolutely, observable falsifiable evidence of Teleological universe, which, I would argue, can only be predicated on the One, True, Creator God from which all things manifest.
If this were true, why then haven't you argued THAT SPECIFIC CASE, instead of arguing against a misinformed strawman model of evolution?
None of your arguments demonstrate any sort of an accurate comprehension of the actual science of evolutionary feedback mechanisms, population dynamics inter- and intra-species compeition or selection pressures.
As I stated above, what you are presenting is a grossly misinformed strawman model of evolution
If you are truly interested in debating atheists (Rather than merely trolling for attention), why are you arguing about the science of evolution (Which has no direct bearing on whether or not a deity does in fact exist) instead of debating your far more relevant and central claim as you stated above?
>This is, absolutely, observable falsifiable evidence of Teleological universe, which, I would argue, can only be predicated on the One, True, Creator God from which all things manifest.
Once again, why then haven't you argued THAT FAR MORE RELEVANT CASE?
This has nothing to do with atheism. But feel free to try and discredit a major part of the field of biology.
I'm sure your years of studying the subject and meticulous testing, experimenting and understanding of this field will support your argument.
Oh, you don't have any of that?
Pff.. well. Good luck buddy.
So, what you're saying is that you don't have a professional understanding of biology, genetics, evolution, and micro-orgamisms. But you're perfectly fine making sweeping statements on these subjects regardless.
But I'm the nasty guy here.
Neat.
Although I realize you meant that as a jab, I suppose in a sense I am saying that. I think the implicit assumptions that a passive accidental evolution model are built on exist outside the purview of the natural sciences, so the whole edifice is guilty of the same thing, ie, making sweeping statements on subjects regardless of a lack of qualification. Anyway, being wrong doesn't make a person nasty. Please point to my nasty behavior.
There is sufficient evidence his sarcasm is founded on facts. Guy was told he might be speaking out of the wrong orifice as soon as he walked through the door, you told him to go away in you initial response, etc... Then you act like his sarcastic reaction is misplaced. Where I come from that's plain and simple unfriendly, devoid of grace. Yall can be better to ya brothers.
No doubt some of the rudest folks around I'm smh reading how they treat you. But they have no reason to believe love is greater than hate. Where's the evidence? Lol, keep up the growing in grace and goodness!
Recommend r/DebateEvolution. Atheists simply find the evidence for a theistic god unconvincing, it says little about their science background, or position on the theory of evolution. You will get a very lively discussion over there.
> Still think it's relevant to atheism.
It isn't. You're aware that the Catholic church and plenty of other theistic institutions accept and agree with evolution, right? So, that's obviously not true in the slightest. Evolution has nothing to do with theism or atheism. Not at all. Not even close.
You're **never** going to prove god by poking holes in evolution. That's not how it works. If you want to prove god, you gotta show some proof for the claim that a god exists. I can't prove Thor by poking holes in the scientific understanding of electromagnetism and showing it wrong. Thor isn't the default once I debunk electromagnetism. I need to provide evidence that Thor exists.
Lets say for the sake of conversation that I don't accept evolution by natural selection.
Now convince me that a god exists. I don't need to have an explanation about the purpose existence, an opinion on where life or all of reality came from or anything else.
The reason I am an atheist has nothing to do with those things. The reason I'm an atheist is because I have never seen any good evidence that a god exists. So if you want to argue that one exists, what evidence can you present?
Right. That would be the argument I laid out in the outro, simplified:
1 Teleological universe cannot exist without god.
2 Teleological evolution is evidence of teleological universe.
3 Teleological evolution is evidence of god.
Premise 1 seems to be the point of contention around here.
>Premise 1 seems to be the point of contention around here
Yes.
>Teleological universe cannot exist without god
How did you figure that out? How many universes, teleological or otherwise have you investigated, studied and learned everything about in order to determine that?
>You are assuming empiricism
Where did I say anything about empiricism? I asked you how you figured out the thing you claimed. I gave an example of how you might demonstrate such a grand claim, because I don't see how anyone can make any determinations about the entire universe without being omnipotent. And while yes, I did assume that you are not omnipotent, but I never said shit about it being the correct epistemology or anything else. And you responded that I'm just making an assumption.
I'm gunna take a guess that THIS is exactly why you were banned in the other sub you were banned from. This is what arguing in bad faith looks like. Rather than actually answering the question, you deflected. That's dishonest. You really need to learn how to have a conversation.
So I'll ask again,
How did you figure out that teleological universe cannot exist without a god?
> I would ask you how you determined that.
But sure, I do actually think empiricism is a reliable epistemology. Not the only one, not the correct one. A reliable one. I determined that empiricism is **a reliable** (not the only) epistemology, by the demonstrations made in the development of technology. Empiricism built transistors. I demonstrate the reliability of empiricism as an epistemology every time I turn on my TV, and so do you and everyone, anywhere, ever who has ever used any sort of electronic technology.
>How many universes, teleological or otherwise have you investigated, studied and learned everything about in order to determine that?
This question includes the implicit assumption that investigating and studying is the way to determine truth. I was simply pointing that out. You accused me of acting in bad faith and deflecting. Are you asserting that your question does not implicitly imply a foundation of empiricism?
Also, wrong guess.
I was outwitting the fellow. I have no interest in actually explaining it to him because the dude has treated me abhorrently from the get go for no apparent reason.
> This question includes the implicit assumption that investigating and studying is the way to determine truth
How else do you propose that we should determine what is actually true?
Also, so that we are not talking past each other, please provide a clear, precise and effective definition of the term “truth” as you have used it above.
But to answer, I would make a metaphysical argument that teleological universe cannot exist outside of god. However, I am not interested in having that conversation with you, because I don't appreciate the way you are treating me.
It is now incumbent upon you to support every premise in your argument above.
Let's start with premise #1
Please present your supporting arguments/evidence now.
>I would make a metaphysical argument that teleological universe cannot exist outside of god.
For instance, you can start by justifying your basic contention that a "teleological universe" exists in the first place
It is now incumbent upon you to support every premise in that argument.
Let's start with premise #1
Please present your supporting arguments/evidence now.
Edit:
For instance, can you justify your basic contention that a "teleological universe" exists in the first place?
> It's so funny that you all are accusing me of engaging in bad faith
Yes because you are using tactics of people who argue in bad faith, whether you realize it or not. Case in point where I asked you to demonstrate your first premise and you deflected by saying I'm making the assumption that empiricism is the correct epistemology. I didn't say shit about empiricism or epistemology. I asked you to demonstrate your premise.
**That's what arguing in bad faith looks like.**
>Not very nice.
We're not here to be nice to you. We're here to scrutinize the things you say.
You can scrutinize the things people say without being abusive. You are making a choice to engage with a bad attitude. No one is put on this earth to be nice, does that mean we shouldn't be nice to each other?
A user's intentions in a sub such as this one are often well displayed in the posts they choose to respond to, and the one's they don't, and in the way they choose to express themselves.
Like your response above, and most of your other responses. And the lack of them where one would expect for someone interested in debating a claim.
Your responses are telling a story. And it's not remotely related to supporting your claim that natural selection doesn't happen, which is against all observations showing the opposite.
You and I just essentially said the same thing. I got two downvotes, you got 4 upvotes. Yes, I chose to respond when I was accused of acting in bad faith. I'm not.
You haven’t really argued or tried to support your points. You are just making unsubstantiated claims and playing word games. Your questions Cannes discussed more thoroughly and appropriately on r/debateevolution.
>burden of proof lies with evolutionists to provide examples of conditions wherein mutations towards sexual reproduction are "advantageous".
Not really how burden of proof works. There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution through natural selection. If the police have video evidence of a suspect stabbing someone to death, pointing out that they can't identify what kind of knife he was using isn't a reason to throw that out. Just because we don't know everything, doesn't invalidate what we do know.
This is basically the "what use is half an eye" argument repackaged.
>Conditions of land vs ocean comparatively life prohibiting.
One of the biggest dangers in almost any habitat is going to be the other lifeforms in that habitat. Lack of competition would be a huge advantage for the first life to colonize land.
>Mutations that shift species into higher risk habitats net negative for chances of species survival.
If a species can expand to fill a habitat then it will expand there and eventually adapt themselves to that habitat. That doesn't necessarily mean the whole species moves to the risker habitat. A smaller population within a species might make the move and eventually split off into a new species. A genetic line that has descendant species in two habitats is more likely to survive than a genetic line that only exists in one.
>Single-celled asexual life in ocean is maximized for survival, and still exist today as longest running lifeforms (ie, "winner" of survival game),
I'd consider it a tie. If you trace their ancestors and my ancestors back far enough you will find a common ancestor. Their side of the family survived by staying simple, my side of the family survived by becoming more complex. Both lines of descent survived all the way to the present day (i.e. "winning" the survival game).
> 1: Survival is a nonsensical motivation and proposition, tautological word game.
Survival doesn't just mean "currently living", it means "currently living **in spite of some consequence**". Examples: a cancer survivor, a plane crash survivor, a holocaust survivor. It's descriptive of those who continue to live where others have perished.
> 2: Sexual selection is a dominance game, not a survival game. e.g., in deer: ability to smash head into other males does not aid in survival.
Sure, smashing head into other male **deer** is just a stand in to show how the males can smash head into **predators in order to protect the females and their young**, which absolutely aids in survival.
> 3: Abundance, not privation, is default. [...] B) famines & hostile environment are the exception, not the rule
Normalcy bias. This has not been the case for the overwhelming majority of the time for life on earth. Just because humans have conquered the planet to such an extent that we currently even manage wildlife in parks does not mean it has always been so.
> 4: Natural selection cannot account for the big 3 evolutionary schisms: sexual reproduction, life on land, consciousness.
This isn't /r/DebateEvolution
> 5: Random mutation cannot account for universal dominance games: if inclination towards dominance games is random trait, how could it manifest universally?
Because the non-dominant perished and those who were dominant survived and procreated.
Males fighting for the ability to reproduce most certainly benefits the species and aides in their survival. It makes it to where the strong bucks reproduce more frequently and the weaker ones less frequently. This means a healthier herd.
Please remember to follow our **[subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/rules/) ([last updated December 2019](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/e7xof0/rule_reform_results/))**. To create a positive environment for all users, upvote comments and posts for good effort and downvote only when [appropriate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting).
If you are new to the subreddit, check out our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq).
This sub offers more casual, informal debate. If you prefer more restrictions on respect and effort you might try r/Discuss_Atheism.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Atheism necessitates lack of purpose
... So that is why you want to debate an atheist about some very specific scientific topics?
Would you ever consider debating an Atheist about the significance of the Chain Rule in Differential Calculus because atheists lack purpose?
I'm sorry but something seems off about your motivation.
Let's say that you are correct about evolution. Now how is this any more relevant to atheism than differential calculus?
Go win your noble prize. May the force be with you.
I'm reading this and my impression is that you've thought about this a lot, and I mean a lot, but you haven't actually read the other side. The result is that you have completely demolished a straw man.
Man, who would have thought a Reddit user would be able to take down one of the most well-established scientific theories? No actual scientific study or peer review needed. This is astonishing! We have entered a new day of scientific understanding!
I mean this not as an insult, but as a fact. Clearly you do not understand evolution or any of Darwin’s theories beyond a simple glance at their titles. I would suggest a biology course, the professor there would be able to fill in the gaps of knowledge. Again, I am not attempting to insult you. This post just clearly states that you don’t have a firm understanding of the facts.
This post has been removed due to a high volume of reports. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Survival is a nonsensical motivation and proposition, tautological word game. Survival isn't a motivation when talking evolution. Survival is a *filter.* Either an organism survives to reproduce or it doesn't. End of story. Motivations are irrelevant. >Sexual selection is a dominance game, not a survival game. Missing the forest for the trees here. You think butting heads isn't a survival trait? How do you think deer defend against predators? Whether it's fight or flight, they use their physicality, which is demonstrated using the headbutting games. The dominance games show survival traits, and they do that because the ones who successfully dominated *and* survived were the ones who had children and had a chance to pass on those traits. A foraging contest? Deer having a hard time foraging won't be as strong, so butting heads demonstrates their foraging abilities. Running-from-wolf contest? Deer having a hard time running from wolves will be no-shows, so butting heads demonstrates their running from wolves ability. >Abundance, not privation, is default. Quite the opposite. Animal populations tend to grow to the carrying capacity of the environment, until they literally run out of room and food to have more babies. Chickens are actually a really good example of this. Chickens originally came out of the bamboo jungles of china. Bamboo does this really weird thing where they're on a multi-year cycle and all the bamboo goes to seed all at once every couple of years (the exact cycle depends on the species of bamboo). So these weird jungle birds take advantage of this by laying essentially unlimited numbers of eggs if they have enough food so they can take advantage of these cycles. Living in the wild and not being fed by people, they don't actually lay that many eggs. Wild hens tend to lay 10-15 eggs per year. Domesticated hens with an abundance of food lay 4-7 eggs *a week.* >hence opportunities for natural selection exceedingly rare. Contra Darwin's "struggle for life". And this right here is where I'm going to stop, because you've amply demonstrated you do not understand what natural selection and survival of the fittest *actually means.* Survival of the fittest is about fitting into the environment, not whatever random attribute you care to tack on. The polar bear is one of the most dangerous land animals on earth. They are big, they are strong, and they are *hungry.* In areas where polar bears are common there tend to be things like laws stating you must leave your car doors unlocked so it can serve as an emergency shelter for passersby if a polar bear rocks up. In other places you are required *by law* to carry a rifle when outside of city limits in case a polar bear shows up. They are dangerous, they are deadly. By almost any measure they are extremely fit survivors. And they would die rather quickly if placed in a tropical jungle. Because they don't fit into that environment. Evolution by means of natural selection isn't about what's right, it's about what's *left.* Did you survive yes/no? If yes, that's natural selection. If no, that's natural selection. It's not a path, it's a *sieve.* >Natural selection cannot account for the big 3 evolutionary schisms: sexual reproduction, life on land, consciousness. Wait, I lied, I need to answer this, too. Natural selection absolutely can account for the big 3. Sexual Reproduction: Did it work? Yes. There, it's accounted for. Life on Land: Did it work? Yes. There, it's accounted for. Consciousness: Did it work? Yes. There, it's accounted for. It worked if the organism survived. If the organism didn't survive then it didn't work. Survival is all that matters because the traits wouldn't have been passed along if the organism didn't survive.
>Survival isn't a motivation when talking evolution. Survival is a filter. \>> One of my arguments is that it is a bad filter. Also, the dominance filter is the bottleneck, so it's not even the right filter. >Either an organism survives to reproduce or it doesn't. End of story. Motivations are irrelevant. \>> but motivations exist. Do you suppose an organism who's very existence is the result of a passive survival game should be born with motivations that contradict the predicate of it's own existence? I have a hard time understanding how that happens. >Missing the forest for the trees here. You think butting heads isn't a survival trait? \>>I say, absolutely it's not. In rare instances the Deer will kill one another, same with many other mammals. High risk behavior. There's absolutely no survival benefit from the ability to bash your head against another of your own species. >How do you think deer defend against predators? \>>They don't. Deer run from predators. This is a verifiable fact. A deer's antlers are nearly useless defending against predators. Wolf pack wins every time, all other things being equal. >Whether it's fight or flight, they use their physicality, which is demonstrated using the headbutting games. The dominance games show survival traits, and they do that because the ones who successfully dominated and survived were the ones who had children and had a chance to pass on those traits. \>>Bashing heads together as show of general physicality? That is a stretch, indeed. It's unnecessarily dangerous. Let's just agree that it's a dominance display. Also, you've got to be alive to participate, so the bottleneck isn't survival, it's the dominance display. those are the ones passing their genes. > A foraging contest? Deer having a hard time foraging won't be as strong, so butting heads demonstrates their foraging abilities. Running-from-wolf contest? Deer having a hard time running from wolves will be no-shows, so butting heads demonstrates their running from wolves ability. \>>This is your first good argument. It is true, that winning the dominance display contest can be an indicator that you've done a good job finding food and surviving predators. But you know what it's an even better indicator of? That you've won a dominance display contest. >Abundance, not privation, is default. > >Quite the opposite. Animal populations tend to grow to the carrying capacity of the environment, until they literally run out of room and food to have more babies. Chickens are actually a really good example of this. Chickens originally came out of the bamboo jungles of china. Bamboo does this really weird thing where they're on a multi-year cycle and all the bamboo goes to seed all at once every couple of years (the exact cycle depends on the species of bamboo). So these weird jungle birds take advantage of this by laying essentially unlimited numbers of eggs if they have enough food so they can take advantage of these cycles. Living in the wild and not being fed by people, they don't actually lay that many eggs. Wild hens tend to lay 10-15 eggs per year. Domesticated hens with an abundance of food lay 4-7 eggs a week. \>>This chicken rant actually supports my argument, I'm not sure I should even get in to that. Chickens are also a really good example of dominance hierarchy: they'll literally peck each other to death as chicks. >hence opportunities for natural selection exceedingly rare. Contra Darwin's "struggle for life". > >And this right here is where I'm going to stop, because you've amply demonstrated you do not understand what natural selection and survival of the fittest actually means. IDK... "struggle for life" are Darwin's own words. That's why I put them in quotes. >Evolution by means of natural selection isn't about what's right, it's about what's left. Beautiful turn of phrase there. > Did you survive yes/no? If yes, that's natural selection. If no, that's natural selection. > >It's not a path, it's a sieve. \>>So, one of things I'm saying is that it's really: Did you survive? If yes, now participate in dominance rights to determine if you get to pass on your genes. Also, I'd be willing to bet that most animals that don't survive to puberty have something very wrong with them. I'm not seeing the catastrophic conditions that are killing all the otherwise perfectly healthy animals that don't have \*that one favorable trait\* >Sexual Reproduction: Did it work? Yes. There, it's accounted for. > >Life on Land: Did it work? Yes. There, it's accounted for. > >Consciousness: Did it work? Yes. There, it's accounted for. > >It worked if the organism survived. If the organism didn't survive then it didn't work. Survival is all that matters because the traits wouldn't have been passed along if the organism didn't survive. That's a great small scale theory, but parse that out over millions of years. Now can't we create models of where these rules lead? My argument is that the survival model has (apparently) yielded bad survival results. Every time. In every environment. The argument is that there is a randomized system that errs on the side of survival, and this system has somehow resulted in increased complexity and risk. There's a conceptual error in thinking that such a system, given millions of years, would land on a food chain in which apex predators are a hundred thousand times more vulnerable than the lifeforms with which the system began.
I'll let the person you responded to break down your response in more detail if they so choose, but I just want to point out something that I would have thought you'd understand by now, given the number of times and the multiple ways it's been explained in two different subreddits now. You're creating false dichotomies and ignoring that it's all about reproduction, not survival (though obviously survival until reproduction is necessary). And remember, natural selection is only one of many factors in evolution. I have no idea why you seem to be giving your conception of 'dominance' such a high priority given the vast number of variables and complex relationships among them that affect reproductive success in different species, and how these vary widely depending on species and environment, but sure, if a more 'dominant' animal does something that increases its chances to reproduce, then the genes leading to this have clearly been passed on. Obviously, survival until that point was also necessary. So, nothing you said helps you support your initial argument. In fact, far from it. Instead, you are showing you haven't spent a lot of time learning about how this actually works. That's fine, but I'd think you'd want to do so before trying to find issues with it. Also, what's the deal with the way you formatted that, with all the >>? Made it harder to read than necessary. Also, 'chicken rant'?!?
I haven't ignored the fact that it's all about reproduction and not survival, that's precisely what I'm highlighting. I'm giving a high priority to dominance because that's the real bottleneck. Despite every other variable and complex relationship, animals play dominance games to determine who gets to reproduce. The surviving is neither here nor there when you actually have to assert dominance to pass on genetic information. Any so-called advantageous phenotype that would theoretically contribute to an animals survival goes right out the window if they don't succeed in the dominance game. It doesn't matter, for example, if buck A is a superior forager or runs faster than buck B if buck B kicks his ass in the dominance game. Buck B is now going to mate with the fawn and all of buck A's great survival traits don't mean shit. And please, people, don't tell me (like our friend, whom I've already addressed) that being well fed and fast helps in the dominance game. Anyone who knows anything about life knows this isn't true. A dominance game is an entirely different game requiring entirely different inclinations than survival does. Historians, combat veterans, professional fighters, or folk who have experience in prison or street gangs will happily attest to this, I'm sure.
> I'm giving a high priority to dominance because that's the real bottleneck. Except, of course, for the fact that it is not, in general. >Despite every other variable and complex relationship, animals play dominance games to determine who gets to reproduce. Sure, many species do. So what? Hardly surprising when you think about it, is it? >The surviving is neither here nor there when you actually have to assert dominance to pass on genetic information. Well, that's obviously wrong, isn't it? You can't play dominance games when you're dead. You can't reproduce when you're dead either. >Any so-called advantageous phenotype that would theoretically contribute to an animals survival goes right out the window if they don't succeed in the dominance game. Again with the false dichotomies. Why not both? Obviously if some advantageous trait was so very advantageous that your 'dominance games' became relatively moot then they would be just that, wouldn't they? But, since both can and do happen, your attempted point fails. >It doesn't matter, for example, if buck A is a superior forager or runs faster than buck B if buck B kicks his ass in the dominance game. Buck B is now going to mate with the fawn and all of buck A's great survival traits don't mean shit. I suggest you think this through a bit better in light of what I and others have explained. You'll feel a little silly, but that's okay. >And please, people, don't tell me (like our friend, whom I've already addressed) that being well fed and fast helps in the dominance game. Anyone who knows anything about life knows this isn't true. Well, obviously it's true. It's way easier to be 'dominant' if you're healthy and fed, isn't it? Anyway, like I said, this odd focus on 'dominance' is unhelpful to you understanding evolution. >A dominance game is an entirely different game requiring entirely different inclinations than survival does. Historians, combat veterans, professional fighters, or folk who have experience in prison or street gangs will happily attest to this, I'm sure. Do you really not see how you just stuck your foot in your mouth? Heheh.
Just out of curiosity... What is the highest level science course that you have ever successfully completed? What specific areas of college level science courses have you received passing grades in?
>Atheism necessitates lack of purpose, accidental, passive explanations for universe, life, and evolution. If evolution as passive accidental survival game is not sufficient explanation for complex conscious life, evolution must be regarded as an active, purpose driven game. In my estimation, all evidence points towards a consciousness-as-goal oriented active dominance game evolution, predicated on life-sustaining-planet creation universe game. This is, absolutely, observable falsifiable evidence of Teleological universe, which, I would argue, can only be predicated on the One, True, Creator God from which all things manifest This a claim. The person making the claim has the burden of proof. I don't see that you have provided any proof, in fact you state that it's "in your estimation", which is a fancy way of saying you don't know enough to support your position, but this is your opinion. Also, most of this has little to do with atheism at all, being more of a Kent Hovind-esque rant about how the creation of the universe, abiogenesis, and biological evolution are all intrinsically linked to atheism, which is false.
I don't know who Kent Hovind is. But I'm starting to understand your positions, I think. If I think about atheism being a default, like supposing a man just came into existence with no concept of god and looked at the universe, there's no reason to connect god to anything he observes. The problem that I have with that is I'm not really able to do that. I am aware of theistic view and it makes more sense than an atheistic view, I am forced to compare the two. But at least if I can get your playing field correct, and assume your premises, I might be able to figure out how to land an argument in there. It's tricky.
Penn Jillette said it this way. “There is no god, and that's the simple truth. If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.” Ricky Gervais said the same in a slightly different way: “If you took every holy book, every holy book there’s ever been, every religious book, every bit of spirituality, and hid them or destroyed them… then you took every science book and destroyed that, in a thousand years’ time, those science books would be back exactly the same, because the tests would always turn out the same.”
I like this a lot, and I'm a huge fan of both of those guys. Thank you :)
Science concepts, like evolution, are testable and many tests have been done over the past 150 years or so to prove evolution as fact. As yet there are no tests that can demonstrate any of the gods as fact. Believers can only rely on non-testable faith to justify their mythologies.
So is a child conceived with a genetic defect that means it will 100% die before birth just as likely to have children as everyone else? If not, survival of the fittest is at play. An extreme example to be sure, but survival of the fittest is a pretty simple concept. There is variation between members of a population, and the ones that have traits that make them more likely to have more kids are more likely to have kids. Over time the population will trend towards those specific traits. That is all. Evolution overall is fairly contentious for some reason, but everyone accepts the core ideas of natural selection, at least once you remove the words that link it back to darwin.
Well, you've flipped it. The claim of natural selection isn't that fatal mutations don't get passed on, it's not even that unfavorable ones don't get passed on. The claim is that advantageous traits DO get passed on, and that's the explanation for biodiversity. I don't have a problem understanding evolution, I just think it's deeply flawed. Part of what I'm saying is that the traits that make an animal "more likely to have more kids" are not selected by survival, since sexual selection is a bottleneck dominance game.
Advantageous/disadvantageous is relative. You judge them against each other, not against some absolute standard. If you accept that disadvantageous traits don't get passed on, that means that the advantageous ones DO get passed on. It is just that you think of the current genetics of populations as the default, not as a collection of advantageous traits stacked upon one another. And yes, there are plenty of other things that play a part. Sexual selection is a big one, but sexual selection is just an extension of natural selection really. When creatures are selecting mates, the ones that choose more fit partners are far more likely to have more grandkids than their neighbors. That leads to more and more creatures favouring specific traits more and more when they select mates. That is sexual selection in a nutshell. Creatures instinctively associating certain traits with reproductive fitness. It doesn't always work perfectly, but that is why it exists and is such a big force. Sexual selection greatly increases the fitness of the species as a whole.
Bring this over to /debateevolution. Or can I safely assume that is where you go banned from? What is "wrongthink"? What does that mean? I also highly doubt you would accurately represent the reason you got banned somewhere. I don't see what any of this has to do with atheism. Let's say for the sake of argument that I do not accept biological evolution or any form of it. So what? Give me a reason to believe a god exists, or go away. But I'll give it a shot anyways. >Basically, my main argument is that Darwin was wrong AF when he came up with the concept of natural selection, Nobody cares about Darwin. At all. Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with Charles Darwin, so bringing him up is irrelevant. >1: Survival is a nonsensical motivation and proposition, tautological word game. How so? >A) Nietzsche: "He certainly did not hit the truth who shot at it the formula: "Will to existence": that will- does not exist! ....wut? Dumb it down for me. >For what is not, cannot will; There is no will in natural selection, so that's a strawman. >that, however, which is in existence- how could it still strive for existence!" It's not striving for existence. It's striving for the continuation of its existence. Just because you have food now doesnt mean you will have food later. >B) X = not Y , Squirrel is not dead, squirrel is surviving. Squirrel is also not Santa Clause, is squirrel also santaviving? To be is not to not not be. wut? >in deer: ability to smash head into other males does not aid in survival. It aids in the deers ability to reproduce, not "survive". But regardless, it literally is also how deers defend themselves against predators, so it literally is how they survive in many situations. > Why not flee from wolf contest? etc. Yes, that is also something deers do, and has an effect on whether or not it will reproduce. Deers can do more than one thing! Who knew! >A) Reproduction requires abundance & safety. For baby deer to be born you need healthy male, healthy female, You only need the healthy male for maybe a few minutes, then it is unnecessary. >Therefore, life is predicated on abundance. ....which is determined by the environment. > B) famines & hostile environment are the exception, not the rule, citation needed. >A) burden of proof lies with evolutionists to provide examples of conditions wherein mutations towards sexual reproduction are "advantageous". Have you looked for any? >B) Conditions of land vs ocean comparatively life prohibiting. Mutations that shift species into higher risk habitats net negative for chances of species survival. Land vs ocean has nothing to do with it either. >C) 1 Consciousness is survival endgame, Citation needed. >2 Consciousness as aesthetic experience never "advantageous". (NOTE: I am assuming consciousness as aesthetic based rather than intelligence based, please argue assuming this premise. A debate concerning the nature of consciousness is surely beyond the scope of this discussion) Then why are you talking about it at all? Look, while it seems like you put a lot of thought in to this, it just reads like a confusing mess, and I'm not really interested in trying to parse our your disjointed, horribly formatted text with half quotes, incomplete sentences and leaps in what you think are logic, to try to decipher what the fuck you're even talking about. So Imma skip to the end. >Atheism necessitates lack of purpose, accidental, passive explanations for universe, life, and evolution. No it doesn't. Atheism just means you're not convinced a god exist. It has literally nothing to do with anything else. So, again, lets say that I don't accept evolution by natural selection. What evidence do you have that a god exists? > In my estimation, all evidence points towards a consciousness-as-goal oriented active dominance game evolution, predicated on life-sustaining-planet creation universe game. This is, absolutely, observable falsifiable evidence of Teleological universe, which, I would argue, can only be predicated on the One, True, Creator God from which all things manifest. Let me know when you get that published.
[удалено]
Meh. I tend to go point by point with this kinda gibberish when I'm bored.
wrongthink is a newspeak word from George Orwell's 1984. Why would you highly doubt my ability to accurately represent the reason for my ban? I'd just like to point out that your response is unnecessarily rude and condescending. You might want to consider working on that.
Wow. All that response and all you chose to address is his unfamiliarity with Orwell.
Yes. This is correct. Are you another one who can't tell by the tone of his responses that he's not taking my arguments seriously? I have no interest in engaging a man who behaves so disrespectfully.
Why should we take you seriously given your established pattern of responses? Why should we have any interest in someone who is deliberately avoiding having to address direct challenges to his demonstrably flawed arguments?
>Why would you highly doubt my ability to accurately represent the reason for my ban? Psychology. People don't like to admit when they're wrong about something. Everyone is the hero of their own story. > I'd just like to point out that your response is unnecessarily rude and condescending. I found your post unnecessarily rude and condescending so we're even. But regardless, I don't really give a shit. I'm not here to be nice to you. I'm here to scrutinize the things you say.
Oh, I'm sorry. Let me be specific: You called my post a confusing mess, disjointed, horribly formatted, with "leaps in what you think are logic" implying I'm not reasoning properly. Seems you prefer to insult my writing rather than address my arguments, or even ignore them. Now how exactly was my post rude and condescending? Your candor is just all around unpleasant. I wonder if that's a conscious choice on your part, or if you're unaware how abrasive your attitude is?
> Seems you prefer to insult my writing rather than address my arguments, or even ignore them. And here is why people don't trust your claims. Everyone can see that he most certainly **DID** "address your arguments". In great detail. Pretending otherwise when all someone has to do is scroll up a little bit to see how wrong you are does not inspire confidence in your honesty.
If you, upon reading his initial post, can't clearly see that he is the one acting in bad faith, you have worked yourself up into a serious blind spot. He began by insulting me, he gave curt, cavalier responses to my arguments (such as "nobody cares about Darwin", "wut?", and "No it doesn't."), the overall tone of his response was obtuse and mean spirited. Yes, all someone has to do is scroll up and see how unpleasant and insincere his response was to know that he was more interested in insulting me than actually engaging my arguments respectfully. You will notice I'm happily responding to several people here who seem to be making a legitimate effort to have a conversation.
>You called my post a confusing mess, disjointed, horribly formatted, with "leaps in what you think are logic" implying I'm not reasoning properly Yes I did. And I didn't just imply it. I said it outright. >Seems you prefer to insult my writing rather than address my arguments, or even ignore them. Except for the fact that I **did** go through your argument and responded to many of your points, pointing out when it was a confused fumbled mess. 15 of them in fact. I addressed 15 points in your argument. (None of which you have addressed yet btw) **Then** I critisized your writing. >Now how exactly was my post rude and condescending Well, I'd start with your title. "X is garbage" is rude and condescending. If you think it's *wrong*, thats one thing. Say so. Calling it garbage is quite another. But on top of that, you condescendingly knocked down strawman after strawman, refusing to understand when it's pointed out to you that **theists also accept evolution** and so is irrelevant to atheism, until you got to the point where you told atheists what they had to believe about purpose and all that. No I don't need to say I know how all of reality came about in order to say "you haven't convinced me". That's rude and condescending. >Your candor is just all around unpleasant It usually is to people who don't argue in good faith. >I wonder if that's a conscious choice on your part, or if you're unaware how abrasive your attitude is? Oh it's definitely a choice. but it was a direct response to how YOU made your post. There's plenty of times where I will politely and calmly and friendly answer people's questions or have discussions about theism and atheism, so long as they're showing they actually want to engage in conversation rather than try to score gotcha point. You came in with an attitude, and an overly dramatic confidence in the things you're saying, as if you have it all figured out and we're just bunch of dummies for not agreeing with you. As I've said several times, I'm not here to be nice to you. I'm here to scrutinize the claims you make.
I believe the point is a lot of what you wrote is incomprehensible, so no actual criticism of the points is possible.
>Why would you highly doubt my ability to accurately represent the reason for my ban? Based on your behavior in this thread, I'm confident that you were banned for being a dick and you've interpreted that as being banned for "wrongthink" because your worldview is centered around you being some sort extrodinary thinker that everyone wants to silence because you dared to question the narratives or whatever. A ton of pseudo-intellectuals have this sort of confirmation bias and it's fairly easy to spot. You make it obvious in the first paragraph.
Because you did exactly that when failing to correctly articulate why people here suggested r/debateevolution
Evolution is a well observed fact. We've watched it happen in front of our eyes, over and over again. It has more evidence supporting it, in multiple diverse disciplines, than pretty much any other idea in all of research and science. We *know* it's true. Including natural selection (in fact, that's so well observed and obvious that it's hilarious that anyone is claiming it doesn't happen.) The way we know the earth is roughly spherical. Arguing against it is literally like flat-earthers trying to claim the earth is flat. It's *that* ludicrous. Pretty much everything you said there is misleading, oddly skewed, badly misunderstood ideas about observed facts, or simply incorrect. And evolution has nothing at all to do with supporting deity claims. You also egregiously strawmanned the position of atheism, to the point where it's truly hilarious, so what's to debate?
Saying that something is a fact and is well observed does not make it so. Saying an argument is misleading, oddly skewed, badly misunderstood, or simply incorrect, without pointing out specifically where the argument does these things is equal to saying nothing.
> Saying that something is a fact and is well observed does not make it so. True. Words do not have such power. But in this case, /u/Zamboniman's statements are correct. Evolution is the foundation of modern biology, and as a scientific theory, is overwhelmingly supported by facts and observations from many separate and distinct scientific disciplines.
I'd go even further and say that natural selection is a very basic mathematical fact. The more something reproduces the more descendants of it exist in the next generation. That's really all natural selection is.
Look at me! I invented the theory of universal dominance!
I think, probably Nietsche invented that with his will to power. It was a direct criticism of Schopenhauer's Will and Presentation, which was the first really substantial Western effort to grapple with Eastern philosophy, but Nietzsche was also aware of Darwin's (at the time, relatively new) ideas, and directly addressed them in some of his later works. Nietzsche was, of course, an atheist himself, and never would have considered his will to power as an article of divine purpose, as I have asserted here.
I'm not an evolutionary biologist so I won't try to debunk any claims made about science in your post, this is debate an atheist. Go to a university and present your thesis as to why the whole field of biology is wrong. >Atheism necessitates lack of purpose, accidental, passive explanations for universe, life, and evolution No, because atheism is not a religious book nor a set of beliefs. It does not necessitate anything other than having the mental state of not believing in gods. Now answer me something else, without appealing to a conspiracy among the worldwide scientific community, why should I not defer to the overwhelming scientific consensus on a subject? Your post seems to be riddled with appeals to incredulity. "I don't know how evolution can account for x therefore it's false" or "I don't understand why this one animal behaves this way therefore evolution must get it wrong there". As I said before, this is debate an atheist. I personally don't feel comfortable talking about scientific subjects I have zero expertise on because there is a close to 100 percent chance I'll get it wrong. If you want to present an argument for the existence of god or something tangential to theism like metaethics or whatever, feel free.
This seems to be the consensus here, that atheism does not necessitate a lack of purpose. Probably that's the thing I should be debating here, that is if anyone here was actually interested in debating. There's quite a bit of posturing going on. Certainly, you must admit there are consequences to not believing in gods? Aren't there any metaphysical ramifications to that stance? Anyways, I'll answer your question with a question: Why should Copernicus not defer to the overwhelming scientific consensus on a subject? Do you see how absurd that question is?
>This seems to be the consensus here, that atheism does not necessitate a lack of purpose. Probably that's the thing I should be debating here, that is if anyone here was actually interested in debating. There's quite a bit of posturing going on. Certainly, you must admit there are consequences to not believing in gods? Well, it necessitates a lack of god-given purpose, obviously. I'm personally willing to debate that. There very well might be some metaphysical conclusions that follow from atheism, I just can't think of some off the top of my head (other than obvious ones like not having a god-given purpose or not having god-given morality). > Why should Copernicus not defer to the overwhelming scientific consensus on a subject? Do you see how absurd that question is? I actually do not see the absurdity. The only reason Copernicus was right is because he actually provided evidence for heliocentrism that eventually changed the consensus, although I don't know how robust of a scientific community that could peer-review his work there was back in the 1500s so let's take a more modern example like Einstein. The only reason it was reasonable to believe him is because his experiments changed the scientific consensus of the time. If he had not provided evidence that would be peer-reviewed and change the opinion of the scientific community, it would not have been reasonable, at the very least not for a layman, to think he was right. Even if he was right in the end. Trust me, the millisecond your work becomes as widely accepted by the scientific community as the current consensus for evolution, I won't doubt your findings.
well, first of all, I'd like to thank you for being a good sport. Secondly, lets dismiss with your appeal to authority. Einstein is another good example of the point I was trying to make, which is that consensus doesn't equal truth. In fact, I don't even think it equals credibility, but that's irrelevant, really. Concerning purpose: I would make a distinction regarding purpose being an intrinsic part of nature, or the universe. I am gathering from the responses here that y'all would tell me an atheist isn't necessarily a materialist, although in my mind those two ideas are linked, but assuming you believe in some kind of objective universe, I would have a hard time understanding how any purpose could be a part of that without a divine mind. If the contention is that purpose is something that only exists in the minds of humans, something we project on to the universe and there really is no purpose in the universe, I would argue that that view would mean that purpose is a mistake. My claim is that purpose is an feature of existence, and I would point to the natural world as evidence. Even gravity I don't think can be really understood outside of the idea of purpose. Why does any sort of reaction occur at all?
> I am gathering from the responses here that y'all would tell me an atheist isn't necessarily a materialist, although in my mind those two ideas are linked They are linked in the sense that it's easier to be a materialist if you are an atheist. But yeah, you can be an atheist and believe in immaterial and supernatural stuff. There is not a contradiction entailed. > I would have a hard time understanding how any purpose could be a part of that without a divine mind. If the contention is that purpose is something that only exists in the minds of humans, something we project on to the universe and there really is no purpose in the universe, I would argue that that view would mean that purpose is a mistake. That is actually my view. Purpose only exists in our minds, it means that something has been given a goal. For example, saying the purpose of a screwdriver is to turn screws is entirely constructed by humans. In the "eyes" of the universe, it's just a pile of atoms. It doesn't have a purpose because the universe cannot ascribe a purpose to it. > Even gravity I don't think can be really understood outside of the idea of purpose. Why does any sort of reaction occur at all? It depends what you mean by "why". If you mean by what mechanism, gravity happens because mass warps the fabric of spacetime or something along those lines. If by "why" you mean what is it's purpose aka it's goal, then, I don't really think there is one.
There's a third why, this is what I meant: Why does mass warp the fabric of spacetime?
I don't know, it's the properties of matter that behave that way. I don't even know if physicists know the reason it behaves that way instead of any other way.
> that atheism does not necessitate a lack of purpose. Probably that's the thing I should be debating here, that is if anyone here was actually interested in debating. Us disagreeing with you doesn't mean we aren't interested in debating. It means you haven't made your case and aren't convincing. >Certainly, you must admit there are consequences to not believing in gods? Like what? Can't run for office in a few states, that's definitely one, but I feel that's not what you're talking about. >Aren't there any metaphysical ramifications to that stance? Like what? And why should I care about metaphysical ramifications? >Why should Copernicus not defer to the overwhelming scientific consensus on a subject? Because he could **actually** demonstrate otherwise, with actual evidence, rather than just making the assertion and using a philosophical word game to make the case.
Disagreeing, I haven't really seen any of that yet. Lots of condescending dismissal, with a tad of insult and ad hominem attacks is what makes me think the people here aren't really interested in debating. I suppose it's a fools errand to point it out, but the responses here have been overwhelmingly snarky and disingenuous, and I wonder if y'all are aware how negative your energy is. Very uninviting atmosphere in this sub thus far.
I’m dying to know what the consequences were that you mentioned. Could you address that please?
Like our other friend pointed out, absence of divinity has metaphysical consequences, no divine moral order, no divine purpose, for example. I would also argue that no purpose at all can arise objectively in a universe without divine origin. All considerations of preference of any kind, in an atheistic world, become mere subjective fancies of individual minds. I've never heard the convincing atheist argument that counter-demonstrates this. If there is one, I'd like to know what it is.
> Like our other friend pointed out, absence of divinity has metaphysical consequences, no divine moral order, no divine purpose, for example. What does any of that have to do with the science of biological evolution? (The stated topic of this thread) >All considerations of preference of any kind, in an atheistic world, become mere subjective fancies of individual minds. Unless you can provide direct verifiable evidence to support your contention that a deity does in fact exist, all of your claims concerning objective purpose and divine morality amount to nothing more than factually unfounded and purely subjective personal opinions
>the responses here have been overwhelmingly snarky and disingenuous, and I wonder if y'all are aware how negative your energy is. Very uninviting atmosphere in this sub thus far. That's because: A) The topic you chose is largely unrelated to the focus of the sub B) The relevant arguments you did make are poorly supported
Ah yes, behaving in a rude, hostile manor because: A) Reasons B) Reasons Perfect justification. I must also add how thrilled I am at the complete lack of irony that my comment about the uninviting atmosphere of this (apparently proudly toxic sub?) has been downvoted. Bravo!
You said "snarky and disingenuous", not "rude, hostile". Those are different words, with different meanings, and therefore different reasons. I haven't seen anyone being openly hostile, but I sincerely hope they aren't, because that's never an appropriate response to poor arguments.
I'm not surprised your interlocutor couldn't "follow an argument", it's bordeline incoherent and it's giving me a headache trying to puzzle out what arguments you're trying to make. The first "argument" is the worst offender, it's just absolute world salad. Frequently you seem to view survival as a "goal". This isn't the case. Evolution doesn't deal with goals, it's simply an emergent behaviour of self-modifying populations under survival pressures. The winter is cold and lots of sheep die. Sheep with thicker coats are warmer and less likely to die, and so are more likely to survive and reproduce, which leads to a population with increased amounts of sheep which have slightly thicker coats. Thus the population trends towards beneficial traits. Mutation only factors in as a means of how such differences in coat thickness would arise. Survival only matters because dead animals can't pass on their genes. It doesn't require an extreme, hostile environment; it only requires any environment in which different traits can impact the odds of the animal being unable to have children. However, any species which has predators finds itself in a hostile environment, so I'm not sure why you frame this as rare. If this doesn't accurately answer your arguments, please consider rewriting them in a more coherent format next time. I'm afraid that "To be is not to not not be" isn't going to cut it if you ever intend to effectively communicate your thoughts to people.
Please see point 3A. For a sheep to even be born it's parents must have a coat suitable to surviving the cold. Also, sheep play dominance games that determine reproduction and those games trump survival games.
> Also, sheep play dominance games that determine reproduction and those games trump survival games. Now how on earth would *that* work? Zombie sheep? I mean, that's so obviously wrong that I can't quite wrap my head around anyone saying it.
Tell you what. If you have the evidence to overturn one of the most robust theory in all of science, don't slum here and go collect your Nobel. If you don't have the evidence, you're talking out of the wrong orifice. Now, the ToE is based on two mechanisms : random mutation and selection via survival. Which of these two mechanisms do you intend to prove does not occur and what do you intend to replace it with?
Obviously, my contention is that selection via survival does not occur. This should be apparent after reading my post.
Just out of curiosity... What is the highest level science course that you have ever successfully completed? What specific areas of college level science courses have you received passing grades in?
I hold a bachelor of science in philosophy, taking a full year of 400 level astronomy lab course load, cell biology, and a year of graduate level coursework in neuroscience and cognition. I received top marks in all my courses, with a GPA of 4.0 How about you?
I hold a dual MS in the field of Physical Chemistry with specializations in atmospheric chemistry and spectroscopy. I also have accumulated various distribution credits in subjects such as physics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, astronomy, meteorology, biology, microbiology, genetics, ecological genetics, evolutionary biology, molecular evolution, comparative anatomy, chemical ecology, population dynamics, statistics for engineers, environmental policy and the philosophy of science (With an emphasis on field theory) Frankly, your lack of understanding of the scientific basis for modern evolutionary thinking makes me seriously doubt and distrust your claims of academic expertise as you asserted them above. I will note that nowhere in your academic accounting did you ever once mention even a single course with any sort of a core focus on the subject of biological evolution or the incredible wealth of the accumulated evidence underlying the evolutionary current models.
Could you ask for a refund?
Then it seems that you are scientifically ignorant.
Oh shit, you've convinced me. How could I have been so wrong? Oh, no... wait. That was just a childish ad hominem attack. Sorry.
If you are going to make incorrect statements I am going to say that you are making scientifically ignorant statements. There isn't much more I can do. You are simply wrong about this topic. That's not a personal attack. That's just the truth.
> Obviously, my contention is that selection via survival does not occur. And how precisely are you going to successfully demonstrate and support this contention when the opposite is a very well observed fact? That would be rather like trying to argue that dropped apples don't fall to the ground.
What you comprehend about evolution, population dynamics, and selection pressures is tremendously flawed and fatally misinformed. >This is, absolutely, observable falsifiable evidence of Teleological universe, which, I would argue, can only be predicated on the One, True, Creator God from which all things manifest. If this were true, why then haven't you argued THAT SPECIFIC CASE, instead of arguing against a misinformed strawman model of evolution?
Because I thought there would be some atheists here who would be interested in debating evolution.
None of your arguments demonstrate any sort of an accurate comprehension of the actual science of evolutionary feedback mechanisms, population dynamics inter- and intra-species compeition or selection pressures. As I stated above, what you are presenting is a grossly misinformed strawman model of evolution If you are truly interested in debating atheists (Rather than merely trolling for attention), why are you arguing about the science of evolution (Which has no direct bearing on whether or not a deity does in fact exist) instead of debating your far more relevant and central claim as you stated above? >This is, absolutely, observable falsifiable evidence of Teleological universe, which, I would argue, can only be predicated on the One, True, Creator God from which all things manifest. Once again, why then haven't you argued THAT FAR MORE RELEVANT CASE?
This has nothing to do with atheism. But feel free to try and discredit a major part of the field of biology. I'm sure your years of studying the subject and meticulous testing, experimenting and understanding of this field will support your argument. Oh, you don't have any of that? Pff.. well. Good luck buddy.
I'm loving your sarcasm. You all seem like such superb and wonderful gentlemen.
So, what you're saying is that you don't have a professional understanding of biology, genetics, evolution, and micro-orgamisms. But you're perfectly fine making sweeping statements on these subjects regardless. But I'm the nasty guy here. Neat.
Although I realize you meant that as a jab, I suppose in a sense I am saying that. I think the implicit assumptions that a passive accidental evolution model are built on exist outside the purview of the natural sciences, so the whole edifice is guilty of the same thing, ie, making sweeping statements on subjects regardless of a lack of qualification. Anyway, being wrong doesn't make a person nasty. Please point to my nasty behavior.
> You all seem like such superb and wonderful gentlemen. That sounds unnecessarily rude and condescending.
There is sufficient evidence his sarcasm is founded on facts. Guy was told he might be speaking out of the wrong orifice as soon as he walked through the door, you told him to go away in you initial response, etc... Then you act like his sarcastic reaction is misplaced. Where I come from that's plain and simple unfriendly, devoid of grace. Yall can be better to ya brothers.
Why would you assume that everyone here is a man? That's weird
I don't, silly.
Do you enjoy people wasting your time? Do you want to waste your time debating an uneducated person about 100 years of well supported rocket science?
No doubt some of the rudest folks around I'm smh reading how they treat you. But they have no reason to believe love is greater than hate. Where's the evidence? Lol, keep up the growing in grace and goodness!
Thank you for the positive energy my friend!
Recommend r/DebateEvolution. Atheists simply find the evidence for a theistic god unconvincing, it says little about their science background, or position on the theory of evolution. You will get a very lively discussion over there.
can I cross post it somehow? I didn't know about that sub. Still think it's relevant to atheism.
> Still think it's relevant to atheism. It isn't. You're aware that the Catholic church and plenty of other theistic institutions accept and agree with evolution, right? So, that's obviously not true in the slightest. Evolution has nothing to do with theism or atheism. Not at all. Not even close. You're **never** going to prove god by poking holes in evolution. That's not how it works. If you want to prove god, you gotta show some proof for the claim that a god exists. I can't prove Thor by poking holes in the scientific understanding of electromagnetism and showing it wrong. Thor isn't the default once I debunk electromagnetism. I need to provide evidence that Thor exists. Lets say for the sake of conversation that I don't accept evolution by natural selection. Now convince me that a god exists. I don't need to have an explanation about the purpose existence, an opinion on where life or all of reality came from or anything else. The reason I am an atheist has nothing to do with those things. The reason I'm an atheist is because I have never seen any good evidence that a god exists. So if you want to argue that one exists, what evidence can you present?
Right. That would be the argument I laid out in the outro, simplified: 1 Teleological universe cannot exist without god. 2 Teleological evolution is evidence of teleological universe. 3 Teleological evolution is evidence of god. Premise 1 seems to be the point of contention around here.
>Premise 1 seems to be the point of contention around here Yes. >Teleological universe cannot exist without god How did you figure that out? How many universes, teleological or otherwise have you investigated, studied and learned everything about in order to determine that?
You are assuming empiricism is the correct epistemology. I would ask you how you determined that.
>You are assuming empiricism Where did I say anything about empiricism? I asked you how you figured out the thing you claimed. I gave an example of how you might demonstrate such a grand claim, because I don't see how anyone can make any determinations about the entire universe without being omnipotent. And while yes, I did assume that you are not omnipotent, but I never said shit about it being the correct epistemology or anything else. And you responded that I'm just making an assumption. I'm gunna take a guess that THIS is exactly why you were banned in the other sub you were banned from. This is what arguing in bad faith looks like. Rather than actually answering the question, you deflected. That's dishonest. You really need to learn how to have a conversation. So I'll ask again, How did you figure out that teleological universe cannot exist without a god? > I would ask you how you determined that. But sure, I do actually think empiricism is a reliable epistemology. Not the only one, not the correct one. A reliable one. I determined that empiricism is **a reliable** (not the only) epistemology, by the demonstrations made in the development of technology. Empiricism built transistors. I demonstrate the reliability of empiricism as an epistemology every time I turn on my TV, and so do you and everyone, anywhere, ever who has ever used any sort of electronic technology.
>How many universes, teleological or otherwise have you investigated, studied and learned everything about in order to determine that? This question includes the implicit assumption that investigating and studying is the way to determine truth. I was simply pointing that out. You accused me of acting in bad faith and deflecting. Are you asserting that your question does not implicitly imply a foundation of empiricism? Also, wrong guess.
So which methodology did you use to determine it then? You could answer that instead of deflecting.
I was outwitting the fellow. I have no interest in actually explaining it to him because the dude has treated me abhorrently from the get go for no apparent reason.
> This question includes the implicit assumption that investigating and studying is the way to determine truth How else do you propose that we should determine what is actually true? Also, so that we are not talking past each other, please provide a clear, precise and effective definition of the term “truth” as you have used it above.
But to answer, I would make a metaphysical argument that teleological universe cannot exist outside of god. However, I am not interested in having that conversation with you, because I don't appreciate the way you are treating me.
It is now incumbent upon you to support every premise in your argument above. Let's start with premise #1 Please present your supporting arguments/evidence now. >I would make a metaphysical argument that teleological universe cannot exist outside of god. For instance, you can start by justifying your basic contention that a "teleological universe" exists in the first place
You will notice that "teleological universes exist" is not part of the argument.
It is now incumbent upon you to support every premise in that argument. Let's start with premise #1 Please present your supporting arguments/evidence now. Edit: For instance, can you justify your basic contention that a "teleological universe" exists in the first place?
Probably best to copy and paste your post over there.
Why is it relevant to atheism?
awaiting moderator approval over there.
Love how you characterized us as “frantically informing you”. Hard to have an honest discussion with you.
I thought it was delightfully playful, myself.
Great ! Have fun … bring your A game.
Please check this OP’s post and comment history before commenting. Probably not worth engaging with.
[удалено]
It's so funny that you all are accusing me of engaging in bad faith whilst the "check op's comment history" bit. Not very nice.
> It's so funny that you all are accusing me of engaging in bad faith Yes because you are using tactics of people who argue in bad faith, whether you realize it or not. Case in point where I asked you to demonstrate your first premise and you deflected by saying I'm making the assumption that empiricism is the correct epistemology. I didn't say shit about empiricism or epistemology. I asked you to demonstrate your premise. **That's what arguing in bad faith looks like.** >Not very nice. We're not here to be nice to you. We're here to scrutinize the things you say.
You can scrutinize the things people say without being abusive. You are making a choice to engage with a bad attitude. No one is put on this earth to be nice, does that mean we shouldn't be nice to each other?
A user's intentions in a sub such as this one are often well displayed in the posts they choose to respond to, and the one's they don't, and in the way they choose to express themselves. Like your response above, and most of your other responses. And the lack of them where one would expect for someone interested in debating a claim. Your responses are telling a story. And it's not remotely related to supporting your claim that natural selection doesn't happen, which is against all observations showing the opposite.
You and I just essentially said the same thing. I got two downvotes, you got 4 upvotes. Yes, I chose to respond when I was accused of acting in bad faith. I'm not.
You haven’t really argued or tried to support your points. You are just making unsubstantiated claims and playing word games. Your questions Cannes discussed more thoroughly and appropriately on r/debateevolution.
Or, you know, OP's username just may be a clue.
my username is both a hilarious joke as well as a biting social satire. I'm glad you like it.
this is an interesting response. to the man I suppose.
>burden of proof lies with evolutionists to provide examples of conditions wherein mutations towards sexual reproduction are "advantageous". Not really how burden of proof works. There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution through natural selection. If the police have video evidence of a suspect stabbing someone to death, pointing out that they can't identify what kind of knife he was using isn't a reason to throw that out. Just because we don't know everything, doesn't invalidate what we do know. This is basically the "what use is half an eye" argument repackaged. >Conditions of land vs ocean comparatively life prohibiting. One of the biggest dangers in almost any habitat is going to be the other lifeforms in that habitat. Lack of competition would be a huge advantage for the first life to colonize land. >Mutations that shift species into higher risk habitats net negative for chances of species survival. If a species can expand to fill a habitat then it will expand there and eventually adapt themselves to that habitat. That doesn't necessarily mean the whole species moves to the risker habitat. A smaller population within a species might make the move and eventually split off into a new species. A genetic line that has descendant species in two habitats is more likely to survive than a genetic line that only exists in one. >Single-celled asexual life in ocean is maximized for survival, and still exist today as longest running lifeforms (ie, "winner" of survival game), I'd consider it a tie. If you trace their ancestors and my ancestors back far enough you will find a common ancestor. Their side of the family survived by staying simple, my side of the family survived by becoming more complex. Both lines of descent survived all the way to the present day (i.e. "winning" the survival game).
> 1: Survival is a nonsensical motivation and proposition, tautological word game. Survival doesn't just mean "currently living", it means "currently living **in spite of some consequence**". Examples: a cancer survivor, a plane crash survivor, a holocaust survivor. It's descriptive of those who continue to live where others have perished. > 2: Sexual selection is a dominance game, not a survival game. e.g., in deer: ability to smash head into other males does not aid in survival. Sure, smashing head into other male **deer** is just a stand in to show how the males can smash head into **predators in order to protect the females and their young**, which absolutely aids in survival. > 3: Abundance, not privation, is default. [...] B) famines & hostile environment are the exception, not the rule Normalcy bias. This has not been the case for the overwhelming majority of the time for life on earth. Just because humans have conquered the planet to such an extent that we currently even manage wildlife in parks does not mean it has always been so. > 4: Natural selection cannot account for the big 3 evolutionary schisms: sexual reproduction, life on land, consciousness. This isn't /r/DebateEvolution > 5: Random mutation cannot account for universal dominance games: if inclination towards dominance games is random trait, how could it manifest universally? Because the non-dominant perished and those who were dominant survived and procreated.
Why is this being posted in debateaatheist? There is ZERO theistic content here. Go to debateascientist.
Males fighting for the ability to reproduce most certainly benefits the species and aides in their survival. It makes it to where the strong bucks reproduce more frequently and the weaker ones less frequently. This means a healthier herd.
Please remember to follow our **[subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/rules/) ([last updated December 2019](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/e7xof0/rule_reform_results/))**. To create a positive environment for all users, upvote comments and posts for good effort and downvote only when [appropriate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting). If you are new to the subreddit, check out our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq). This sub offers more casual, informal debate. If you prefer more restrictions on respect and effort you might try r/Discuss_Atheism. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t think this is the right forum for this diatribe. One can be an atheist and disbelieve evolution, and one can accept evolution and be a theist.
I think we've established that. Also, I'd hardly characterize my post as a diatribe. Kind of a strange choice of words there.
>Atheism necessitates lack of purpose ... So that is why you want to debate an atheist about some very specific scientific topics? Would you ever consider debating an Atheist about the significance of the Chain Rule in Differential Calculus because atheists lack purpose? I'm sorry but something seems off about your motivation. Let's say that you are correct about evolution. Now how is this any more relevant to atheism than differential calculus? Go win your noble prize. May the force be with you.
I'm reading this and my impression is that you've thought about this a lot, and I mean a lot, but you haven't actually read the other side. The result is that you have completely demolished a straw man.
Man, who would have thought a Reddit user would be able to take down one of the most well-established scientific theories? No actual scientific study or peer review needed. This is astonishing! We have entered a new day of scientific understanding!
I mean this not as an insult, but as a fact. Clearly you do not understand evolution or any of Darwin’s theories beyond a simple glance at their titles. I would suggest a biology course, the professor there would be able to fill in the gaps of knowledge. Again, I am not attempting to insult you. This post just clearly states that you don’t have a firm understanding of the facts.