Round three *ding*
So, I found another incredibly interesting and incredibly false argument: The Uncaused Causer.
The argument goes something like this: The universe has not always existed. Something cannot be created by nothing, so something must have always existed. That something must be immensely powerful because there is an immense amount of matter and energy and it must be immensely intelligent, as it created everything in this oh so complex a world, and that effectively means God. Here are some flaws in that reasoning.
a)Before does not have a meaning when it comes to the universe, therefore the universe has "always" existed by sheer definition because time began when the universe began. There is no before.
b) Why must their be intelligence? I've discussed this before, the world is utterly complex but derives from simplicity.
c) God can not have "always" existed by the same reasoning that the universe "can't" "always" have existed. (Notice the drastic increase of inverted commas?^^)
Next is a very amusing argument for God by a semi-famed philosopher whose name I forget and am to lazy to look up, that had me stumped for quite a while until the absurdity of it hit me. It goes like this:
I) God is a being which possesses every good attribute.
II) It is better to exist than not to exist.
III) Therefore, existence is a good attribute.
IV)Therefore, God possesses the attribute existence.
V) Therefore, God exists by definition.
Well, there is one little problem, just because I define that a shwimp is a blue flying pig that exists doesn't mean it does, does it?
And one last thing, about which I'd like to vent my anger. A certain person(yes, I mean you Frank Walton) has linked in my blog to his. Now, this in itself isn't so bad. But, he only allows moderated comments and, since his blog does not have a comment I could find contradicting his opinion(admittedly I have neither will nor time to read his entire blog), even though his message is very controversial, so it just reeks like censorship, and so I shall not even try. So Frank Walton, I'd be happy to engage in a (sort-of^^) grown-up discussion, if you are capable, if you read my blog(and don't just google Brian Sapient and call him an idiot at every oportunity, which I am almost sure of anyhow) and if you feel like you are not demeaning yourself by discussing such a thing who has no qualifications beyond over-average intelligence.
Thank you.
PS: I find linking in other people's comments very rude if you do not at least mention that person's blog in your own.
Edit: I just found rules regarding the comments, so I guess I'll give it a try. Wish me luck.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Friday, November 9, 2007
Atheism, evolution and blah II
I've received my first hate-comment today. Yay for me.^^
Anyway, here we go again.
Morality: a favorite of theists around the world, that like to argument that morality derives from god and so, atheists must either be hedonists or nihilists. They are, of course, quite wrong. Using the bible as a moral guide is like using "Mein Kampf" for information about Jews. Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a little, but you get my point. The bible in and of itself is entirely outdated(the youngest parts are after all, I believe, 1,800 years old) when it comes to morality, and anyone who reads it non-selectively, not how it is read in church but from front-to-back(not that I have done this, the bible is not exactly a fun read^^), will find plenty of passages that are highly dubious when it comes to morality. Of course, many rules still apply to today's society, but by far not all of them. But still, this does not explain where atheists get their morality from. So, here it is, the magic word: Memetics.
Memetics is the same thing as genetics just for social behavior. Let us imagine two societies, one with ethics and one without. Which is more likely to survive? Obviously, if everyone works together, the society has a much better chance of survival than if everyone steals and tries to kill everyone else. We basically have ethics because it makes sense. And isn't that what atheism is all about? Not only that, we should have better ethics because we don't use religious dogma, we use what makes sense
So what about Pascal's Wager? What if we're wrong? Well, first of all, quite simply, we're not. That easy. Second, what if you're wrong? You've wasted your one and only life praying to a false God. If you pray for five minutes every day and go to church every Sunday for 2 hours for seventy years, you waste more than a year of your life, and what if you're praying to the wrong god and the real god throws you into hell for exactly this reason? Who won then? I got a year more out of life than you did, yet we both end up the same. And third, why would I even want to worship God?
1. Anyone who creates a whole universe for his sheer pleasure is obviously megalomanic.
2. He is incredibly cruel and sadistic. He knows how we will react and when we will sin, for he is omniscient, yet he puts us through this elaborate test called life to determine if we go to heaven and hell.
3. He is incredibly cruel and sadistic because of the sheer existence of hell. Modern countries have at max death penalty and often only lifelong imprisonment as maximum punishment, but God gives us eternal torture.
4. Belief in God discredits free choice. If God knows everything, past, present and future, and this is only possible if the future is predetermined.
So, those were my thoughts on atheism for today, maybe more tomorrow, or maybe some other day, if I can come up with enough to warrant a post, or maybe something different entirely
Good bye,
James Blood.
Anyway, here we go again.
Morality: a favorite of theists around the world, that like to argument that morality derives from god and so, atheists must either be hedonists or nihilists. They are, of course, quite wrong. Using the bible as a moral guide is like using "Mein Kampf" for information about Jews. Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a little, but you get my point. The bible in and of itself is entirely outdated(the youngest parts are after all, I believe, 1,800 years old) when it comes to morality, and anyone who reads it non-selectively, not how it is read in church but from front-to-back(not that I have done this, the bible is not exactly a fun read^^), will find plenty of passages that are highly dubious when it comes to morality. Of course, many rules still apply to today's society, but by far not all of them. But still, this does not explain where atheists get their morality from. So, here it is, the magic word: Memetics.
Memetics is the same thing as genetics just for social behavior. Let us imagine two societies, one with ethics and one without. Which is more likely to survive? Obviously, if everyone works together, the society has a much better chance of survival than if everyone steals and tries to kill everyone else. We basically have ethics because it makes sense. And isn't that what atheism is all about? Not only that, we should have better ethics because we don't use religious dogma, we use what makes sense
So what about Pascal's Wager? What if we're wrong? Well, first of all, quite simply, we're not. That easy. Second, what if you're wrong? You've wasted your one and only life praying to a false God. If you pray for five minutes every day and go to church every Sunday for 2 hours for seventy years, you waste more than a year of your life, and what if you're praying to the wrong god and the real god throws you into hell for exactly this reason? Who won then? I got a year more out of life than you did, yet we both end up the same. And third, why would I even want to worship God?
1. Anyone who creates a whole universe for his sheer pleasure is obviously megalomanic.
2. He is incredibly cruel and sadistic. He knows how we will react and when we will sin, for he is omniscient, yet he puts us through this elaborate test called life to determine if we go to heaven and hell.
3. He is incredibly cruel and sadistic because of the sheer existence of hell. Modern countries have at max death penalty and often only lifelong imprisonment as maximum punishment, but God gives us eternal torture.
4. Belief in God discredits free choice. If God knows everything, past, present and future, and this is only possible if the future is predetermined.
So, those were my thoughts on atheism for today, maybe more tomorrow, or maybe some other day, if I can come up with enough to warrant a post, or maybe something different entirely
Good bye,
James Blood.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Intro
So, for the first part, I'll start with a short introduction. Everybody recognizes it (or perhaps not XD), you are struck by a thought, an amazing thought, something you just want to share with the general populace, but its not exactly something you could bring up in small talk. This happens to me rather a lot. And those thoughts then develop and grow and at some point, they wither and die again. Which is kind of sad, considering the amount of mental effort you put into them. So, I decided to write them down some where-here.
Well then, let's get to my person. I'm a teenage German-American, currently living in Germany. I'm a liberal, a radical atheist, a bookworm. I listen to punk, rock and metal, but I don't exactly have the "look" of someone who does. I get good grades, but I'm lazy as hell. I read several web comics as well as bash.org and am a fanatical Guild Wars player. Over the years, I have been on different internet discussion forums(rpgs, clan and philosophy boards) and games.
So, that's all I can think of(or at least everything I can think of that I'm willing to tell)
Good bye and have fun
Well then, let's get to my person. I'm a teenage German-American, currently living in Germany. I'm a liberal, a radical atheist, a bookworm. I listen to punk, rock and metal, but I don't exactly have the "look" of someone who does. I get good grades, but I'm lazy as hell. I read several web comics as well as bash.org and am a fanatical Guild Wars player. Over the years, I have been on different internet discussion forums(rpgs, clan and philosophy boards) and games.
So, that's all I can think of(or at least everything I can think of that I'm willing to tell)
Good bye and have fun
Atheism, evolution and blah
Now, lately I have started reading Richard Dawkins, more specifically "The blind watchmaker" and, as always when I get enthralled with something, I have to devour as much knowledge and as many opinions as possible, which also lead me to youtube, where there are a lot of controversial opinions, and what better way to start a blig than with a discussion as controversial as atheism.
The first thing I noticed is that many people don't understand evolution(or at least not as I understand it). Evolution, in and of itself, is a very simple thing, and consists of three vital components, heritage, selection, and mutation. If these three components are fulfilled, then evolution takes place.
Heritage is so widely accepted that it is usually omitted from the list, but as it is important, I put it in for completeness. Without heritage, evolution were impossible, but I believe everyone with an education and most without know and understand that children gain their traits from their parents. Everyone who doesn't, please press Alt+F4 for a deeper explanation XD
Selection is basically a tautology and boils down to "Those that survive, survive." Of course, this is a simplification, but it better expresses the tautological character of selection. Selection, in and of itself, needs no proof or verification. More accurately, the sentence should probably be "Those traits, that allow a higher rate of producing offspring which themselves produce offspring, has a higher chance of becoming wider spread." Taking heritage for granted makes this sentence tautological as well, but it is harder to recognize. Let's examine it. Technically, it is not survival of the creature itself that is important, but it is essentially very similar in most cases. To make this clear, a creature that is devoured after ten minutes but births 100 offspring in this time has a very low survival rate, but is very good at passing on it's genes. On the other hand, a creature that lives to be one hundred years old but only births one offspring per couple will have a good rate of survival but the species, and therefore the genes of every member of the species, will go into a steady decline. Also, the offspring themselves must be able to produce, it is pointless to simply produce as much offspring as possible if they all die in infancy. Now, if this trait leads to a lot of offspring, that trait is in a lot of creatures, and therefore becomes more widespread. Alas, self-proving, but we should remember the word chance, as it is important in genetics. Genes are passed on in random, but randomization in great numbers lead to near absolutes.
Then we come to the last part, mutation. This is also well-proven, especially in the case of bacteria due to their short lives, and therefore the high amount of generations, but it is hard(and hardly ethical) to produce under tested circumstances and to view the effects of mutation, as in general, it only takes place very rarely, and only from the transition from one creature to it's child.
Some Christians argue with the difference of micro evolution and macro evolution, but effectively, the only difference is time. A longer time leads to a greater difference between the original and the endproduct, but that is the only difference. The key is small steps, or to say it in Brian Sapient from the "Rational response squads"'s words"You can only walk a mile in small steps." (or something similar, I'm quoting from memory here, but the video is on youtube, posted by rationalresponse for anyone who cares to look.
Next thing: People say it is incredibly unlikely that the universe came into being exactly the way it is, and that even the slightest change of the natural constants would have made it completely different and likely lifeless. There are 2 things I can retort to this. First of all, we don't know how many tries there have been "outside", "before" or "after" the universe(of course these three words are relatively meaningless in connection with the universe), we can, for obvious reasons, only register the one successful try, second of all, one chance still means there is a chance, and as every combination is equally unlikely, every result is practically incredible.
Enough for today, more tomorrow.
Good bye, James Blood.
The first thing I noticed is that many people don't understand evolution(or at least not as I understand it). Evolution, in and of itself, is a very simple thing, and consists of three vital components, heritage, selection, and mutation. If these three components are fulfilled, then evolution takes place.
Heritage is so widely accepted that it is usually omitted from the list, but as it is important, I put it in for completeness. Without heritage, evolution were impossible, but I believe everyone with an education and most without know and understand that children gain their traits from their parents. Everyone who doesn't, please press Alt+F4 for a deeper explanation XD
Selection is basically a tautology and boils down to "Those that survive, survive." Of course, this is a simplification, but it better expresses the tautological character of selection. Selection, in and of itself, needs no proof or verification. More accurately, the sentence should probably be "Those traits, that allow a higher rate of producing offspring which themselves produce offspring, has a higher chance of becoming wider spread." Taking heritage for granted makes this sentence tautological as well, but it is harder to recognize. Let's examine it. Technically, it is not survival of the creature itself that is important, but it is essentially very similar in most cases. To make this clear, a creature that is devoured after ten minutes but births 100 offspring in this time has a very low survival rate, but is very good at passing on it's genes. On the other hand, a creature that lives to be one hundred years old but only births one offspring per couple will have a good rate of survival but the species, and therefore the genes of every member of the species, will go into a steady decline. Also, the offspring themselves must be able to produce, it is pointless to simply produce as much offspring as possible if they all die in infancy. Now, if this trait leads to a lot of offspring, that trait is in a lot of creatures, and therefore becomes more widespread. Alas, self-proving, but we should remember the word chance, as it is important in genetics. Genes are passed on in random, but randomization in great numbers lead to near absolutes.
Then we come to the last part, mutation. This is also well-proven, especially in the case of bacteria due to their short lives, and therefore the high amount of generations, but it is hard(and hardly ethical) to produce under tested circumstances and to view the effects of mutation, as in general, it only takes place very rarely, and only from the transition from one creature to it's child.
Some Christians argue with the difference of micro evolution and macro evolution, but effectively, the only difference is time. A longer time leads to a greater difference between the original and the endproduct, but that is the only difference. The key is small steps, or to say it in Brian Sapient from the "Rational response squads"'s words"You can only walk a mile in small steps." (or something similar, I'm quoting from memory here, but the video is on youtube, posted by rationalresponse for anyone who cares to look.
Next thing: People say it is incredibly unlikely that the universe came into being exactly the way it is, and that even the slightest change of the natural constants would have made it completely different and likely lifeless. There are 2 things I can retort to this. First of all, we don't know how many tries there have been "outside", "before" or "after" the universe(of course these three words are relatively meaningless in connection with the universe), we can, for obvious reasons, only register the one successful try, second of all, one chance still means there is a chance, and as every combination is equally unlikely, every result is practically incredible.
Enough for today, more tomorrow.
Good bye, James Blood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)