Atheism: Philosophically Redundant?

[ProHypster]

As for explaining the Coccyx, or using it as a sole suggestion for mankind to once have had a tail is a bit low, there is numerous functions the coccyx has, like the transfer of weight on the coccyx while sitting down

 

Not that I oppose that suggestion or anything.

 

1. Danielsangeo, you will not understand a creationalists view (Especially from me) and that's fine. I am a guy who can understand both views (Proven by the fact that I had numerous discussions in real life with both and it wasn't controversial but mostly logical and solid talk)

 

2. Evidence for you, opinion for most creationalists. What you think of that....irrelevant.

 

Why don't you do what I did:

 

Take a paper and write down all the possibilities of how the world could've started with what you know. Provide the source for everything you know and you might realize a few leaks. You will probably understand the world better after.

 

You are biased Daniel, it's easy to spot for someone who studied psychology.

The first step is in admitting that.

[danielsangeo]

Just because the coccyx still does something doesn't mean that it's not evidence of a tail. Remember, things just don't "turn on" or "turn off" simply because something is "being created" or "is vanishing". Everything still has a use for that particular creature as it's vanishing or coming into being. Vestigial =/= Useless

 

But, I am biased and I admit it. I am biased to facts and evidence. It's going to take a lot to make me believe otherwise. About as much as what made me believe in this in the first place.

[ProHypster]

Just because the coccyx still does something doesn't mean that it's not evidence of a tail. Remember, things just don't "turn on" or "turn off" simply because something is "being created" or "is vanishing". Everything still has a use for that particular creature as it's vanishing or coming into being. Vestigial =/= Useless

 

But, I am biased and I admit it. I am biased to facts and evidence. It's going to take a lot to make me believe otherwise. About as much as what made me believe in this in the first place.

 

Well firstly, no-no-no, everyone believes in facts and evidence, let's be clear that you are biased as in you only consider what is suggested as facts and evidence by scientists and that the articles you believe in, studied or read were all obviously suggsted facts and evidence for evolution

 

Alright, now to the coccyx, to be honest to me it's as low as pascals wager but on the atheist side of the view as a suggestion.

 

Numerous possibilities not taken in account for.

[ProHypster]

I want to make something clear about evidence.

 

Consider this Daniel:

 

DNA is the evidence for evolution as in, it shows mutations, it evolves, copies itself etc etc and that is the basic theory of evolution.

 

DNA is the evidence for Monotheism as in it is so complex that it is just impossible to think that it was created by randomness and that God must've created this.

 

As you can see, Mutations is a fact. So DNA is evidence that mutations is a fact.

What most people don't see is that DNA is NOT and evidence for Evolution nor Creationalism, it supports it only if you already believe in or think like an evolutionist or creationalist respectively.

 

Lots of movements used both theories as what they called "evidence and facts", for example Nazism, Slavery, Crusaders....

 

It usually works like this, I say the world is "2+2=3" and someone proves that 2 exists. Then i say that "2" is the proof for 2+2=3.

 

But what about 2+6+7=3 or 1234654+456=7 both are supported by the same evidence.

[Doom Shepherd]

DNA is the evidence for Monotheism as in it is so complex that it is just impossible to think that it was created by randomness and that God must've created this.

.

 

This is the Argument from Incredulity fallacy, combined with Hoyle's Fallacy.

 

It's been debunked in the evolution thread already, Repeating it will not make it true now.

[Doom Shepherd]

Speaking of evidence... I have a conclusive Scientific Test for God-ness.

 

Now all I need is a bunch of followers willing to enter their God/s.

 

Test #1: Under controlled conditions, impregnate 1 (one) virgin.

Test #2: Under controlled conditions, revivify 1 (one) dead human.

Test #3: Choose one:

1: Feed 1 (one) multitude, defined as the population of a preselected third-world nation, for 1 (one) full year.

2: Heal 1 (one) physically handicapped person, chosen by the Judges. This person will be an amputee.

 

The winner will recieve approbation as the one true god, plus all money, possessions and property held by churches, organizations and representatives of the losing gods. These possessions may be distributed according to the whim of the winner.

 

[ProHypster]

DNA is the evidence for Monotheism as in it is so complex that it is just impossible to think that it was created by randomness and that God must've created this.

.

 

This is the Argument from Incredulity fallacy, combined with Hoyle's Fallacy.

 

It's been debunked in the evolution thread already, Repeating it will not make it true now.

I've never read that part then. First I'm making sure that since the Evolutionary thread I am decided i am still a monotheist, what changed is that I am an agnostic when it comes to religion and it's connection to God. But I do have a very strong belief in some kind of spirit (something that is not physical and most likely a soul, incorporeal intelligence). I put my strategy simply to live further and wait, if I get a sign or find out something more then i will put myself into a stronger position or sometime go on an adventure to Jerusalem, Egypt to specifically find out myself instead of sitting on the computer. I should actually do it.

 

Btw, the incredulity fallacy has nothing to do with it. I do believe in Evolution personally as I said before though. The Hoyle fallacy itself isn't entirely correct either. There is numerous other possibilities and as I said you will view it depending on what position you have.

 

Doom Shepherd, to prove spiritism, go to a dark magic store and buy yourself some tools, but I warn you, you may be braking some balance or doing something evilish, but I'm sure you don't believe in that crap anyways so you won't be anxious or expecting anything. I know this works as I had numerous different trusted friends who "talked" through this to their dead grandmas and said they will never do it again as it scared them to death.

 

Check this out, it's actually very complex stuff:

 

http://www.explorespiritism.com/

 

And try this already as you seem to be sooo convinced there is nothing out there (I have no responsiblity to what may happen to you)

 

 

EDIT: Wow, shepherd, so hard to figure out who minus repped me..... .

 

Well if you want to prove to yourself that there are no spirits, go ahead, use those tools, you know you want it.

[Axeldeath]

Black magic... *sigh*

[ProHypster]

Black magic

You can't say anything untill you tried it.

 

Also black "magic" is as it is called by idiots, in reality it's all perfectly real.

 

But it's spiritual and unexplained yet. We just call magic everything that can't be explained by science yet.

[ProHypster]

Speaking of evidence... I have a conclusive Scientific Test for God-ness.

 

Now all I need is a bunch of followers willing to enter their God/s.

 

Test #1: Under controlled conditions, impregnate 1 (one) virgin.

Test #2: Under controlled conditions, revivify 1 (one) dead human.

Test #3: Choose one:

1: Feed 1 (one) multitude, defined as the population of a preselected third-world nation, for 1 (one) full year.

2: Heal 1 (one) physically handicapped person, chosen by the Judges. This person will be an amputee.

 

The winner will recieve approbation as the one true god, plus all money, possessions and property held by churches, organizations and representatives of the losing gods. These possessions may be distributed according to the whim of the winner.

 

 

That's not even immature, I can understand immature but that just sounds stupid to me.

 

 

EDIT:

 

Doom Shepherd or anyone else who dares... this is completely off topic.

It's more a psychologic thing I need to test.

If you try to read this how do you feel?

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/Welcome.html

[ProHypster]

Anyways, regarding the topic, what was the intent of it, as far as I know we came to a conclusion that atheism is philosophicaly viable and not redundant.

 

Or was the topic a flame bet?

[Axeldeath]

The jury is in agreement, FLAME BET YOUR HONOUR!

[ProHypster]

Trial Dismissed. .... wait wrong smiley..

[Dan-95]

Doom Shepherd or anyone else who dares... this is completely off topic.

It's more a psychologic thing I need to test.

If you try to read this how do you feel?

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/Welcome.html

 

I feel sickened that someone could write html that badly. I am unsure of his style sheet though.

 

Honestly, i don't care much, he(or she) can believe what he wants and can preach on the internet if he wishes. I'd act the same way if i was on a Christianity page.

[Dan-95]

Anyways, regarding the topic, what was the intent of it, as far as I know we came to a conclusion that atheism is philosophicaly viable and not redundant.

 

Or was the topic a flame bet?

 

 

I posted earlier.

[ProHypster]

Doom Shepherd or anyone else who dares... this is completely off topic.

It's more a psychologic thing I need to test.

If you try to read this how do you feel?

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/Welcome.html

 

I feel sickened that someone could write html that badly. I am unsure of his style sheet though.

 

Honestly, i don't care much, he(or she) can believe what he wants and can preach on the internet if he wishes. I'd act the same way if i was on a Christianity page.

 

I meant, is it easy for you to read it? Do you feel any dizziness for example. Or you can't take it seriosusly at all...

 

This is by the way, a "universal morality belief" test.

[ProHypster]

Dan-95, alright then, let's get on with the topic

So, studying philosophy and all, I think

 

Atheism is philosophically viable because it is an explanation. (Don't confuse with answer)

All true classified philosophical beliefs/religions are explanations. If it can't explain life then it of course isn't an explanation, therefore it isn't philosophical.

 

It doesn't even need to be logical, as long as it is your own opinion and you came to it through questioning life and through personal experience and what you formed of it.

 

Maybe you are an anti-logistic for all I care. But philosophers never die with this conclusion...

 

It is philosophically viable because You did some simple mistakes, if I ask "Why?" Atheism actually does answer. "There is no why"

 

Anything that explains in one way or another is philosophical.

[ProHypster]

Although then, yet again philosophers rarely ever die atheist.

 

Even as Aristotle writes:

 

So what is wisdom? The ancients and medievals distinguished between theoretical wisdom and practical wisdom. To take them in order, at the beginning of the Metaphysics, Aristotle tells us that wisdom – the subject matter of metaphysics – “is knowledge having to do with certain principles and causes” (982a), in particular the “primary things and the causes.” (982b) “For it is through them and from them,” he continues, “that the other things are known and not the latter through the underlying things. And the most fundamental of the sciences, more fundamental than that which subserves it, is that which discerns for what end each thing must be done. And this is the good for each thing, and in general the best in all natures.” (982b) He adds that such wisdom is sought “for its own sake” rather than “utility” (982b) and that there is something “divine” about it, especially insofar as “god is thought to be among the causes for all things.” (983a)

 

Theoretical wisdom, in short, is (a) central to metaphysics, (b) to be sought for its own sake rather than utility, and involves knowledge of © the ultimate causes of things, especially (d) their “ends” or final causes and (e) their divine source. Practical wisdom for the ancients and medievals is prudence, in the sense of the habitual choosing of those means best suited to realizing the ends nature has set for us as human beings.

 

As to the same question in atheism, "What caused everything?"

I suppose in Logical Atheism (I'm not speaking teminologically but common word usage) the cause of all things are the things themselves. Nothing was made, everything existed forever. Although I want to hear more from the atheists how they can answer the same question.

 

We know if the question "What caused everything" gives the answer "Error" it is not philosophical.

[Axeldeath]

Doom Shepherd or anyone else who dares... this is completely off topic.

It's more a psychologic thing I need to test.

If you try to read this how do you feel?

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpent ... lcome.html

 

I feel... Nothing, sounds like the exact same rants to expect for extremist creationists. I actually laughed a couple of times at the sheer stupidity of the document, I laughed just as much at that as I have at creationists that make stupid claims that make no sense.

[ProHypster]

Doom Shepherd or anyone else who dares... this is completely off topic.

It's more a psychologic thing I need to test.

If you try to read this how do you feel?

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpent ... lcome.html

 

I feel... Nothing, sounds like the exact same rants to expect for extremist creationists. I actually laughed a couple of times at the sheer stupidity of the document, I laughed just as much at that as I have at creationists that make stupid claims that make no sense.

 

Ok, thanks for the participation but I don't think I can count that as a viable test anymore....

 

On topic: I posted my opinion earlier so just waiting for Dan to respond.