Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

a reply to: WarminIndy

If it is a choice then it is part of a worldview

You are starting to get it, the key word here is part.

Every single belief and disbelief is a part of a worldview. When you put together all of your beliefs and disbeliefs then you get your whole worldview.

All the small pieces make up a whole puzzle. All your beliefs and disbeliefs make up your whole worldview.

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: WarminIndy

If it is a choice then it is part of a worldview

You are starting to get it, the key word here is part.

Every single belief and disbelief is a part of a worldview. When you put together all of your beliefs and disbeliefs then you get your whole worldview.

All the small pieces make up a whole puzzle. All your beliefs and disbeliefs make up your whole worldview.

Yes, YOU are getting it now.

All your beliefs and disbeliefs make up your whole worldview.

Uh huh, exactly what I said. And it is how you interpret your world and why atheism is a worldview. Belief and disbelief are both action verbs, you choosing, according to your interpretation, to behave according to that.

So it has nothing to do with religion.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Uh huh, exactly what I said. And it is how you interpret your world and why atheism is a worldview.

WarminIndy, you are going back in circles.

We already agreed that all of your beliefs and disbeliefs make your worldview.

Beliefs + disbeliefs = worldview

But now you are going back and saying that one disbelief is a worldview.

One disbelief = worldview

Do you see where you are doing it wrong?

If atheism is a worldview then atheists would have the same worldview, but we don't as you saw that one atheist believes in spirituality and I don't. The only thing in common we have is one disbelief, but our worldview is different.

originally posted by: danielsil18
a reply to: WarminIndy

Uh huh, exactly what I said. And it is how you interpret your world and why atheism is a worldview.

WarminIndy, you are going back in circles.

We already agreed that all of your beliefs and disbeliefs make your worldview.

Beliefs + disbeliefs = worldview

But now you are going back and saying that one disbelief is a worldview.

One disbelief = worldview

Do you see where you are doing it wrong?

If atheism is a worldview then atheists would have the same worldview, but we don't as you saw that one atheist believes in spirituality and I don't. The only thing in common we have is one disbelief, but our worldview is different.

Nope, closed the circle...

As you started on the premise that atheism isn't a worldview simply because it has a disbelief and then you go on to say what I said, that it is included, then we agree, atheism is a worldview.

a reply to: WarminIndy

He can Atheism be a worldview when some religions such as Budhism and Jainism for example, do not themselves advocate for the existence of a god or gods?

A worldview is effectively a set of beliefs and assumptions through which someone interprets the world around them. Whether or not a philosophy qualifies as a worldview is really a matter of how pervasive that ideology is to them and that's all that atheism is when you get right down to it, a philosophy.

Just like with Christians in America, you have varying degrees of pervasiveness from your Christmas and Easter Catholics to the little old Itallian lady that is at mass every single day of the week on and upwards to Appalachain snake handlers to Texas Megachurches where they preach austerity while living in mansions paid for by their congregants. Its all a matter of degrees. To some, yes it certainly can be their worldview or a major part thereof but it all varies from person to person. Insisting that Atheism is a worldview is as ignorant as pigeon holing all Christians based on what you've heard about the Branch Davidians. You're taking an extreme viewpoint of it to justify your own biases in my opinion.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Howdy,

This seems like a misunderstanding of philosophies. The Creationist philosophy seemingly consists of essentially one idea, that god did everything. If you start out with this philosophy (which I think is the case, but please correct me if I am wrong), then you might assume that a world view can be constructed with only one belief. But this is not the case. In making the blanket statement, "God did everything," you are actually defining lots of different beliefs at once. What is the (ultimate) origin of the moon? God. What is the (ultimate) origin of the Earth? God. What is the (ultimate) origin of humans? God. This is the (simplified and generalized) Creationist worldview, and although it seems like one belief creates a worldview, it is actually a list of beliefs with the same answer.

With atheism, there is only one idea. If we assume that atheism is a belief (and I still maintain that it is not, but rather is a lack of a belief...) then that one idea would be that there is no god/deities/higher powers. If atheism is a worldview, it should be able to answer all of the questions I previously asked that Creationism could respond to. Let's test this.

What is the (ultimate) origin of the moon? Atheism alone can't answer this. Science or naturalism might answer this, but science and naturalism are not atheism. What is the (ultimate) origin of the Earth? Again, atheism cannot answer this. What is the (ultimate) origin of humanity? Again, a lack of belief of gods does not offer a way to answer this question.

That said, atheism (a single idea) can be incorporated into a worldview, and it is certainly a part of my own. Atheism might even permeate into my (or other atheists') other views, but I think the more accurate thing to say (in my case) is that atheism is in fact a result of my other views. If atheism is a result of my worldviews, it cannot thus be my worldview, can it?

If I can show you an example of a case where atheism is not a worldview, as I think I have demonstrated by my position(as my atheism is in fact a result of my "natural philosophy"), then is it not illogical to claim that atheism is inherently a worldview?

I hope this clarifies some things for both sides...

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

I think one can say that God started everything, created everything and that view could include evolution. God created through evolution. Why can't we have that world view?

a reply to: amazing

Howdy,

I agree with you, that worldview is possible. More than that, I have seen people who actually hold such a worldview, so it is also real (more than just possible).

I think you'll also find that (at least some) atheists (like myself) have nothing wrong with that worldview, either, and are open to such a possibility (thus making me really an agnostic atheist...). I'd hazard a guess and say that a significant portion of open minded and skeptical people might think similarly to me, but I cannot make that claim (I don't have the evidence to support it). The problem really only arises when observations contradict scriptures and the religious/spiritual are unwilling to accept that observations could contradict scriptures.

Now, one could argue that human perception is faulty, and say that all science (observation) that contradicts scripture is wrong, but it would mean that logical discourse would end. Why? If we accept that all human perception could be so flawed as to question all observations, then we must also conclude that the human perception of scriptural belief is also equally flawed, and thus might also be wrong. In this stalemate, the philosophy that can best make predictions about reality and test them (falsifying them or otherwise...) should be considered the better philosophy of our perceived reality.

It is entirely possible that scientists are not observing the "real" reality, but if that is the case, then nothing meaningful can really be said about any philosophy, can it? How could one really know if anything were truly "real" and not just a result of human failures in perception?

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: amazing
I think one can say that God started everything, created everything and that view could include evolution. God created through evolution. Why can't we have that world view?

WE? You can.

originally posted by: WarminIndy


And hence limiting the dragon to your definition of dragon, with the parameters for dragon that you accept. This is called Zohner Effect.

Lol

If you could demonstrate god has an existence outside of your imagination, that would be a good start and somewhat more convincing. At the moment he has the same properties as fairies, sylphs, unicorns.....or anything else with only a claimed existence.

As you actually tried to put someone down and by implication raise your own standing via logically fallacious inference to the Asch experiments simply for not adhering to your particular belief, I doubt you understand them or the following research based on them.

What if I told you that you could visibly observe and predict the behaviors in two groups of people, one that believes in God and the other that doesn't? Would you say to me that those are mere natural causes for the people to act like they do? OK, we shall see.

I would say you are correct. The best and most comprehensive data we have shows this clearly. This is known to sociologists who wonder why religion is synonymous with dysfunction and deleterious effects on societies.

It is a fact that right across the first world, higher religiosity equals higher...

divorce rates
abortion
disease
poor education
rejection of science
STD infections
crime
corruption
incarceration levels
income inequality
poverty

To mention just a few. Though things like tolerance, welfare, health care etc. also drop sharply.

If you say that there the atheists actions are the same as believers, then that should be predictable and observed,

It is observed quite well by comparing modern secular societies such as Sweden, Japan etc. to overtly religious ones such as the USA. This shows the USA is (sociologically) a 2nd/3rd world society by comparison. When you look regionally, the bible belt is actually horrific by comparison. Why would it be that the more religion proliferates, the less healthy the resulting society is?

Ever wondered why young people in the bible belt are litterally hundreds of times more likely to contract syphilis or gonorrhoea then in comparably secular and "promiscuous" European countries?

the Bible Belt is trending in an unholy way. Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana have the most obese populations, the highest amount of cancer deaths, and the fewest teeth. Along with South Carolina, those states also have the most cases of Gonorrhea and Chlamydia. In the southeast, the gonorrhea rate per 100,000 people is over 100, and the chlamydia rate per 100,000 people is 400 plus.

Translation: the STD numbers in the respective states are high enough to be classified as epidemic.

www.eduinreview.com...

Now you could say that it doesn't prove God exists,

Now you are being ridiculous. Of course it doesn't. The best and most comprehensive real world data we have shows this...

It follows that all hypotheses that religious belief and practice are the normal, deeply set human mental state that is highly resistant to conversion to nontheism are unverified. Instead popular religion is in the main a superficial psychological response that seeks the daily aid and protection of supernatural entities to alleviate the stress and anxiety created by a sufficiently dysfunctional social and especially economic environment. Other potential causes of large-scale religiosity, including fear of death and genetics, are at best secondary factors that only operate effectively when the socioeconomic situation is defective to the required degree. Popular nontheism also is a predominantly superficial psychological response to the socioeconomic environment, in its case to a sufficiently secure one. The greater the displacement of religious sensibilities by more secular alternatives the greater is the corresponding suppression of popular creationist opinion that is dependent upon high levels of belief in a creator.

www.epjournal.net...

Or this study on the US in particular, which found the correlations so sound it concluded that high level religiosity is not just commensurate with, but basically a form of societal dysfunction.

www.epjournal.net...

but it certainly is predictable and observed by a scientist in the field in which he is an expert. So how did the brain become hardwired? Was it through a mutative process in the species? If it were a mutation in the species, then all members of the species should be evolved to believe in God. So what happened here?

Belief in God actually changes your brain. Tell me, is the guy a pseudoscientist?

Wow, repetition creates neural pathways. Meditative states and the like can show different brain function on MRI. Give that man a Nobel prize! He doesn't realise it, but he is studying (among other things) the effects of religious delusion on the brain. He just calls it something else.

If he's not a pseudo scientist, he will do just fine until we can find one. Is his lab in Sagan's garage?

Neurotheology!!! That'll sell lol. He should team up with Deepak Chopra (who is also highly qualified).

It seems all of your original questions have been answered. Though unlikely to your satisfaction unless they mention god and some are seemingly ridiculous enough to only require a one word answer (such as wondering if there are 6-7 billion different species of hominid on the planet at the moment).

The genetic mutation waffle is also answered, random or not, they are considered random with respect to evolution at this stage.

It also shows that, despite claims to the contrary, science realises there is a lot yet to learn and is open to whatever it finds on this subject and is looking.

The rest is simply hot air.

There is nothing inherently wrong in believing in a higher power in a personal sense (who knows?), but when it conflicts with observable reality to the extent it argues that a specific belief is a fact...then is backed up only with ignorance/pseudo science, waffle and more belief....then it's a delusion.

Non beliefs do not count as part of a worldview. Sorry. If I don't believe something exists, it is NOT part of my worldview, because it's not part of my reality. Saying atheism is a worldview (or even part of it) is like saying that not believing in Santa Clause, gnomes, fire breathing dragons, invisible people or Zeus is a world view. There are millions of things people do not believe in, but you don't have to list them all when somebody asks what your worldview is. You tell them what you DO believe. They aren't asking for everything you don't think exists. Atheism isn't a belief system, it is simply the lack of one particular belief. Ask an atheist what he DOES believe and you might get somewhere in conversation, rather than from coming off condescending.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: WarminIndy

He can Atheism be a worldview when some religions such as Budhism and Jainism for example, do not themselves advocate for the existence of a god or gods?

A worldview is effectively a set of beliefs and assumptions through which someone interprets the world around them. Whether or not a philosophy qualifies as a worldview is really a matter of how pervasive that ideology is to them and that's all that atheism is when you get right down to it, a philosophy.

This is exactly what I am saying. This whole discussion started when I commented that I had read a post from someone who is atheist say they don't have a worldview.

I am defending the position and definition that you just gave of worldview, that is all. I said it had nothing to do with religion, whether one believed in a religion or whatever, the definition of worldview is just what you defined here.

The post comment was made as part of musing about how educational and intellectual levels are decreasing, and yet those who claim to be rational and logical can't even think about their own worldviews and how they interact with the world around them, through their worldviews.

That is simply what happened, but it descended to this because people don't know what a worldview is. Atheism is a worldview, and I believe that in subsequent posts I mentioned that Christianity is a worldview, Buddhism is a worldview, Islam is a worldview and others are as well. Hollywood is a city, but the Hollywood mystique is a worldview as well.

Celebrity watching comes from a worldview. Gangsta rap is a worldview. People have worldviews and when these people share worldviews then it becomes a group worldview. Why is it so hard for people to understand?

The worldview of atheism is not just a lack of belief, but the shared concept of lack of belief among atheists, makes it a shared worldview, broadly. That's what I was trying to explain, in the broadest sense of definition, atheism is a worldview, the worldview is that atheist choose not to believe therefore their interpretation of the world arises from that.

It is stupid to say one doesn't have a worldview. Do you think one would really get an A on that college paper after studying worldviews in psychology, sociology and anthropology?

originally posted by: Barcs
Non beliefs do not count as part of a worldview. Sorry. If I don't believe something exists, it is NOT part of my worldview, because it's not part of my reality. Saying atheism is a worldview (or even part of it) is like saying that not believing in Santa Clause, gnomes, fire breathing dragons, invisible people or Zeus is a world view. There are millions of things people do not believe in, but you don't have to list them all when somebody asks what your worldview is. You tell them what you DO believe. They aren't asking for everything you don't think exists. Atheism isn't a belief system, it is simply the lack of one particular belief. Ask an atheist what he DOES believe and you might get somewhere in conversation, rather than from coming off condescending.

It is your worldview because you felt motivated according to your belief on non-belief and come on here and dispute with me over the definition of worldview. Your actions reflect your worldview.

That's your belief on your non-belief, that it must be defended. Do you believe that your non-belief should be defended? What do you expect the end goal of your action to be? What parameters qualify as part of that defense? It all arises out of your worldview.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
It seems all of your original questions have been answered. Though unlikely to your satisfaction unless they mention god and some are seemingly ridiculous enough to only require a one word answer (such as wondering if there are 6-7 billion different species of hominid on the planet at the moment).

The genetic mutation waffle is also answered, random or not, they are considered random with respect to evolution at this stage.

It also shows that, despite claims to the contrary, science realises there is a lot yet to learn and is open to whatever it finds on this subject and is looking.

The rest is simply hot air.

There is nothing inherently wrong in believing in a higher power in a personal sense (who knows?), but when it conflicts with observable reality to the extent it argues that a specific belief is a fact...then is backed up only with ignorance/pseudo science, waffle and more belief....then it's a delusion.

If they have all be answered to your satisfaction, why are you still compelled to come here and attempt to prove me wrong?

But you failed to see that the answers have not be proven. And that has since been acknowledged, not by me though.
But hey, ATS gets to be the place where you get to share your worldview, debating is what you like to do, because it is part of the ATS culture.

Cogito, as you think, so you will do.

originally posted by: amazing
I think one can say that God started everything, created everything and that view could include evolution. God created through evolution. Why can't we have that world view?

Of course you can have that worldview. You have the freedom and right to believe that if you want, because it is how you would interpret the world around you.

But worldviews are deeper, because people act according to their worldviews.

Atheists have the freedom and right to believe or disbelief all they want, it is their worldview. I think people have heard the term "Christian worldview" and thought that the term worldview is limited to religion. I was trying to explain that the term worldview has nothing to do with religion. Religion itself is is part of a larger worldview, but not always.

A worldview is simply how one interprets the world around them and how they interact in it.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
It is your worldview because you felt motivated according to your belief on non-belief and come on here and dispute with me over the definition of worldview. Your actions reflect your worldview.

That's your belief on your non-belief, that it must be defended. Do you believe that your non-belief should be defended? What do you expect the end goal of your action to be? What parameters qualify as part of that defense? It all arises out of your worldview.

I didn't defend or deny any view in particular. I was just clearing up some common misconceptions. Claiming a non belief as a world view is exactly that. World view is essentially your picture of the world. Not your picture of what's not in the world. I'm actually agnostic as far a creator goes.

Do you believe in unicorns? Do you consider a-unicornism part of your world view?

Now the phrase "world view" itself can mean many things, I'm using the "belief system" definition. Evolution isn't a world view either. It's a fact of nature proven by scientific methods.

1: Does every individual of any group of species mutate at the same rate as all members?
Generally not but its possible for more than one to have the same mutation at similar times by chance. Its not a mutation that happens randomly its usually something present at birth then carried on to the next generations. Some species change noticeably and some do not so much.

2: If the definition of species is "members of a group who are capable of interbreeding" and species first began in a singular biome, then if there is another biome in which a species population resides, did the species in the biomes mutate at the same rate?
Species is sort of a loose term i think. Also evolution doesnt mean they evolve like pokemon. They adapt over time and the point where its one species versus another is not really clear cut since there are between species that dont really have names sometimes. Mutations leading to adaptations dont have a set rate as far as I know.

3: Given that biomes are environments and mutations occur because of environmental reasons, then how are Africans and Inuits the same species?
Humans of all races have no significant difference in DNA. Although there is some DNA difference between someone who lives in one places versus another. And didnt you answer this question yourself with number 2??? They can breed together.

4: As mutations lead to changes species-wide, so that a population in a biome becomes a different species, then the mutations in DNA that lead to different haplotypes, then are we all different species from each other?
The mutations dont lead to changes species wide its that the species with the not so good mix of DNA and physical features gets phased out over time for its newer version who thrives better. Again no we are not different species as far as I know.

5: As mutations are designed for adaptation for survival within a biome or moving to a new biome, the first species of life had no predatory reasons to adapt for survival within the biome, then did original mutations occur solely within the original biome?
Mutations arent needed to be designed. Some mutations cause horrible diseases and other mutations give advantages. Those with an advantage thrive more. Many mutations serve no real purpose so change is possible even if not needed.

6: As Natural Selection is the adaptation, then why do those who adapt, then go back to the state before adaptation?
Im not sure I understand what you mean but if youre saying why does the original species not dissapear its because what they had was good enough to survive along side new species.

7: How many individual species were in the original biome?
Since all life has very similar DNA only one is needed but its possible there could have been more.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: WarminIndy
It is your worldview because you felt motivated according to your belief on non-belief and come on here and dispute with me over the definition of worldview. Your actions reflect your worldview.

That's your belief on your non-belief, that it must be defended. Do you believe that your non-belief should be defended? What do you expect the end goal of your action to be? What parameters qualify as part of that defense? It all arises out of your worldview.

I didn't defend or deny any view in particular. I was just clearing up some common misconceptions. Claiming a non belief as a world view is exactly that. World view is essentially your picture of the world. Not your picture of what's not in the world. I'm actually agnostic as far a creator goes.

Do you believe in unicorns? Do you consider a-unicornism part of your world view?

Now the phrase "world view" itself can mean many things, I'm using the "belief system" definition. Evolution isn't a world view either. It's a fact of nature proven by scientific methods.

OK, you are agnostic, which means in your worldview it has room for such a possibility. Evolution is a worldview because it make accommodation for no such possibility. Therefore it is a worldview according to the definition.

Atheism simply means that one does not believe in God, therefore no room for such a possibility.