The good atheist I'm proud of. But why do they care? (Moved from Kill 'Em WIth Kindness Forum)

nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
The good atheist I'm proud of. But why do they care? (Moved from Kill 'Em WIth Kindness Forum)

Why is there cancer? Why is there disease, suffering and cruel death?

The questions posed by the kind-hearted atheist. That query is really the best position to hold for the atheist to take their stand among the great thinkers and doers of "human" history.

I wonder why though, if they are evolutionists, especially Darwinian evolutionists (which seems ubiquitous), they even feel caring about others?

Does the lion feel such a crushing weight of remorse or guilt when its prey, after an attempted murderous attack, gets away with a shattered leg? Only to die in pain and agony ending up the carion meal of some other animal?

Isn't cancer and disease just proof that the individual having the condition is just an inferior individual?

I have always admired an atheist stepping out of the evolutionary concept of survival of the fittest and caring about the inferiority of another person getting what their gentics called for.

It seems supernatural to care for others.

Well done. Good and faithful servant of mankind.

 

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
 I wonder why though, if

 I wonder why though, if they are evolutionists, especially Darwinian evolutionists (which seems ubiquitous), they even feel caring about others?

There is no such thing as a non-Darwinian evolutionist. Granted there are other mechanisms of evolution like endosymbiotics, but without natural selection there is no evolution.

 Does the lion feel such a crushing weight of remorse or guilt when its prey, after an attempted  murderous attack, gets away with a shattered leg? Only to die in pain and agony ending up the carion meal of some other animal?

Actually it was Dawkins who wrote that because humans are conscious, the greatest triumph of mankind was to "gain power over the selfish replicators". In an essay called Crossing the River out of Eden, I concured and wrote:

 Look at man! The pedestal of four billion years of painstaking progress, a drive upwards which has been wrought with death and the ruthlessness of nature in symbiosis with the fragility of life. The instincts imprinted onto man, instincts which no doubt had tremenous Natural selection benefits, are no doubt self-intersted and violent. Every time a rush of adrenaline (a mechanism which has existed in animal life for many millions of years) shoots through your bloodstream, you will understand the feeling of power and narcissism. Yet...it has also given us a flexible set of tools for getting what we want. Whenever you see a chimp picking the lice out of the back of one of his fellows, whenever you see birds feeding each other, for no apparent gain to themselves, you are witnessing altruism.

Although evolution creates selfish organisms, they co-operate to form societies whose mutual benefit thusly maxamizes the rewards of the individual. Human society of course rests at the top of it now. And what would seem best of all from our standpoint, is that we have broken free from the Selfish replicators. As the socities we create no longer have foundations in the instincts with two million years on the African Savannah fine-tuned, our evolution is not genetic but cultural, a unit of information which can move many million times faster than the genes. As evolution has given us abilities like empathy (which is the result of a mirror-neuron wiring, quite a recent introduction into animal neurology) as well as altruism, we have turned the tables on the genes, once our lords and masters. Now, we exist in organiztions which to the genes must surely seem so unnatural, and so unusual. Yet they were their own undoing. They gave us neuroplasticity, they gave us endocrine balance, they gave us mirror neurons and altruistic tendancies...

Is it safe to say, I wonder, that we, the first truly sentient entities to inhabit the planet, have beaten the genes?

 Isn't cancer and disease just proof that the individual having the condition is just an inferior individual?

See above.


I have always admired an atheist stepping out of the evolutionary concept of survival of the fittest and caring about the inferiority of another person getting what their gentics called for.

See above. By the way, this is fallacious reasoning, commiting a genetic fallacy and an argument from nature fallacy. If you do not know what these are, find out. 

 It seems supernatural to care for others.

See above. I have used biology to demonstrate this false. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Nimitz68
Nimitz68's picture
Posts: 48
Joined: 2006-10-29
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Why is there

Quote:

Why is there cancer? Why is there disease, suffering and cruel death?

Good question. Have any answers?  

Quote:
I wonder why though, if they are evolutionists, especially Darwinian evolutionists (which seems ubiquitous), they even feel caring about others?
Does accepting Darwinian evolution strip you of emotions?  If you rejected Darwinian evolution after a lifetime of acceptance, would you suddenly gain them?

Quote:
Does the lion feel such a crushing weight of remorse or guilt when its prey, after an attempted  murderous attack, gets away with a shattered leg? Only to die in pain and agony ending up the carion meal of some other animal?

Anthropomorphism. The lion that kills, eats. The lion that doesn't goes hungry. Lions feel as much guilt about eating zebras as I do about eating chickens. None.

 I hunt and fish, so if your going to ask me if I feel guilty about killing my food, the answer is no. I know where meat comes from.

Quote:

Isn't cancer and disease just proof that the individual having the condition is just an inferior individual?

 No. Contracting cancer from being exposed to chemicals, radiation has nothing to do with being "inferior or superior". Not getting sick may be simply a matter of being immunized. How do you define inferiority in people?  A lack of resistance to illness?

Quote:
It seems supernatural to care for others.

I roll up my sleeve and give blood a few times a year. It helps others. It's no supernatural event. I have O+ blood, the most common. There's a great need for it. But you want to know the truth? I do it for the free t-shirts! Tongue out I have a closet full of them. Plus if I or my family is in need of blood we get some kind of discount I believe. Not only that, I also get a free blood test. (pressure/cholesterol/ect) Mine is coming down all across the board!

I also donate money to the United Way through work. It helps others too. I get a tax write-off as well.

 

Quote:
I have always admired an atheist stepping out of the evolutionary concept of survival of the fittest and caring about the inferiority of another person getting what their gentics called for.

All survival of the fittest means is the fast lions eat and the fast zebras don't get eaten. The fit animal's odds of passing genes to the next generation increases. There are no emotions involved.

There's nothing to step out of.

But if you are in a herd of zebras... watch where you step!

Ever "hang-ten" on the bow of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier at 30+ knots?


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Well guys (or

Well guys (or whatever),

The lengths to which the evolutionists go to to prove their unmovable premise is fascinating to watch.

 All of this Darwinian-derived lovefest that our genetics have supposedly taken us to, is bringing our planet to a point where all of the scientific (money manking) caring for each other - the discovering means to stop diseased people (the inferior individuals of our species) from dying - could end up killing everyone on the planet.

 Evolution is making a mistake if survival and improvement is the mechanism it possesses. Helping people and "caring" about them seems tremendously counter productive if cause and effect is still a scientific method of gaining the truth.

In other words, an atheist that possesses the ability to care for others, may indeed be a proof for a designer that has implanted this "feeling" in our genetic code.

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead

nonbobblehead wrote:
[weird preamble snipped] I wonder why though, if they are evolutionists, especially Darwinian evolutionists (which seems ubiquitous), they even feel caring about others?

 

You do realize that The Origin of The Species is a science book, not a guide to life itself, right? It seems religious people tend to look for direct equivalents in ideas that have excluded their conceits. That the anthropological evidence suggests civilizations ran, unabated, through the supposed time of a worldwide flood, doesn't mean anthropologists claim to have the meaning of life. It only suggests Noah's Ark is a fiction.

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
Does the lion feel such a crushing weight of remorse or guilt when its prey, after an attempted  murderous attack, gets away with a shattered leg? Only to die in pain and agony ending up the carion meal of some other animal?

 

Does the lion indiscriminately kill members of his or her own pack? Lions are violent and nasty creatures, but they have a set social order. Do bees, all endowed with stingers, use them constantly against their own hive simply because they can? Your premise suggests that every human being is potentially a sociopath. Since you make a point about atheists, I'm assuming you're begging the question of morals being derived from religious dogma. In that case, we shouldn't see any religious person behaving deliberately in a manner inconsistent with his or her religion. If you say they're not sincere in their faith, then how do we know who is sincere? If you say only “god” knows, then what sort of indicator is religion supposed to be for us?

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
Isn't cancer and disease just proof that the individual having the condition is just an inferior individual?

 

A slippery slope argument? Please.

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
It seems supernatural to care for others.

 

Not at all. Your model of humanity is a dysfunctional straw-man and would have long gone extinct out of its incapacity for cooperation.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote: The

nonbobblehead wrote:
The lengths to which the evolutionists go to to prove their unmovable premise is fascinating to watch.

Tu quoque.

nonbobblehead wrote:
All of this Darwinian-derived lovefest that our genetics have supposedly taken us to, is bringing our planet to a point where all of the scientific (money manking) caring for each other - the discovering means to stop diseased people (the inferior individuals of our species) from dying - could end up killing everyone on the planet.

I can't even glean an actual argument from this.

nonbobblehead wrote:
Evolution is making a mistake if survival and improvement is the mechanism it possesses. Helping people and “caring“ about them seems tremendously counter productive if cause and effect is still a scientific method of gaining the truth.

This just sounds like a non sequitur to me.

nonbobblehead wrote:
In other words, an atheist that possesses the ability to care for others, may indeed be a proof for a designer that has implanted this “feeling“ in our genetic code.

That rationalization is not only unjustified, but totally unnecessary. There is a strong case for biologically derived morals, and they are in fact the basis for all cooperative animals. If early humans had simply struck out on their own there is a slim chance they would survive in the presence of animals so much stronger and more cunning than they. The ones who tended to cooperate tended to survive, tended to breed, hence the strong presence of sociability and cooperation in modern man. It's not just man, either. Even chimpanzees have been shown to possess qualities of altruism and self-sacrifice. But hey, maybe they were Christian chimps. I'll leave you that argument, since you have none to spare.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
He merely repeated his tired

He merely repeated his tired arguments again in his second post. Never mind that he didn't bother to respond, or that I showed him that his claims of empathy from "design" are rubbish. He is a charlatan who knows nothing about evolutionary physcology, neurology, cognitive neuroscience, etc ad infinitum. I pointed out twice that he commited a genetic fallacy and an argument from nature fallacy, and the biological evidence for what he claimed was spiritual. He is a half-baked troll, not a scientist, and as such, his opinion on the matter is worth nothing.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: He merely

deludedgod wrote:
He merely repeated his tired arguments again in his second post. Never mind that he didn't bother to respond, or that I showed him that his claims of empathy from "design" are rubbish. He is a charlatan who knows nothing about evolutionary physcology, neurology, cognitive neuroscience, etc ad infinitum. I pointed out twice that he commited a genetic fallacy and an argument from nature fallacy, and the biological evidence for what he claimed was spiritual. He is a half-baked troll, not a scientist, and as such, his opinion on the matter is worth nothing.

Where's that excellent essay on morality without god?

Also, I would recommend that the OP actually learn something about evolution.  Cooperation and empathy were good for our survival, dude.  Mirror neurons are a fascinating topic. 

deludedgod, do you think sociopaths lack the mirror neuron response? Has there been a study that found lack of the mirror neuron function in anyone? 

(I'll probably Google it...) Smiling 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Never

deludedgod wrote:
Never mind that he didn't bother to respond,

Well, he did say himself he wasn't going to listen. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod, do you think

deludedgod, do you think sociopaths lack the mirror neuron response? Has there been a study that found lack of the mirror neuron function in anyone?

Interesting. Mirror neuron wiring faults tends to be associated with autism, not sociopaths. You are stepping out of my field and more into todangst's, however. at the far end of the spectrum, Autistic children have a severe inability to interact with others. They are incapable of normal speech, not because of a problem with formation of vocal chords or anything along those lines, but rather because the mirror neurons are wired improperly (or so the theory goes), ant any rate. 

Sociopaths, on the other hand, have no problem of this sort. In fact, they tend to be better at speech than most and usually have high IQs. They are very slick and silver-tongued, the exact opposite of an autistic child. But even an autistic child should have a normal EQ. However, a sociopath lacks the ability to empathize. Again, I am not sure of this, the best person to talk to would be todangst. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Well, he did say himself he

Well, he did say himself he wasn't going to listen.

Where did he say that? 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Well, he

deludedgod wrote:

Well, he did say himself he wasn't going to listen.

Where did he say that?

 

Quote:
Start another one if you want my testimony or apologia. Until then, I would like to know how something can come from nothing? That is what an atheist believes no matter the rhetoric to deny it.

Another thread,another subject.

But as you can see, he would rather listen to himself on what we think, then get the information from the source. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
 Quote: Untl then, I would

 Quote: Untl then, I would like to know how something can come from nothing? That is what an atheist believes no matter the rhetoric to deny it

Well, in that case he is very ignorant of quantum physics too.

That was discussed here by me:

 http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/miscellanous_forums/6990

If he is listening (he's probably left, so no matter, he should read the discussion following the article about the singularity).

Also, ex nihilo creation, whatever his absurd objections, do not violate the laws of quantum physics. I was in correspondence with another member about the subject only hours ago, and this what I wrote:

Now, if you look around at some of the evolution forums, like the one titled "evolution" started by impeached, and the one titled "comments on the nightline debate" started by noexcuse, you will notice that my responses to each contain a section on the laws of Thermodynamics, which explains in long detail what Victor is referring to. However, this explanation is long and full of formulae. The simple premise is that everything progresses to lower energy states. Now, I agree with Victor about ex nihilo, but I am multiverse theorist, so I would contend that the term "nothing" as we understand, means nothing (ironic). Try envisioning "nothing". Impossible. What victor refers to as "nothing" is technically someting.

What he was talking about, as I said, is spontaneous breaking. Imagine a dam holding back water. This dam is perched on top of a hill blocking a river. If the dam was not there the water would naturally take the path of least resistance and flow downhill. SImple. The water has progressed to a lower energy state, as nature commands. But with the dam there, the water cannot flow downhill. Nonetheless, the water cannot get over the dam, and thus, even though the water is not in its lowest energy state, the arrangement is relatively stable. It is for this same reason that organisms, which are extremely far from chemical equilibirum, do not spontaneously combust.

If the dam is cracked and bursts, the water will flow from the false vacuum, the dam, to the true vacuum, the water. This false vacuum may have been the original state of the universe and it is what victor refers to as "nothing". We also call it a singularity. A singularity is a point where mathematical relationship is not defined. The universe is believed to have been born out of a singularity after a false vacuum fluctuation, when all the essential forces were unified into one.

The universe today is like a broken mirror, with the four forces ruling it disjointed and separate from each other. This is because the original vacuum arrangement is unstable. It broke, and from it gushed the true vacuum- the universe. This unified state, the vacuum arrangement, has another name- nothing.

To quote Victor J Stenger in God, The Failed Hypothesis:

> "If the laws of physics follow naturally from empty space-time then where did that empty space-time come from? why is there something rather than nothing? This question is often the last recourse of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of god from physics and cosmology and finds that all his other arguements fail. Philosopher Bede Rundle calls it "Philosophy's central, and most perplexing, question." His simple (But book length) answer: "There has to be something" (God the failed hypothesis Pg 132.)
>
> "How do we define "nothing"? What are its properties? If it has properties, doesn't that make it something? The theist claims that God is the answer. But, then, why is there god rather than nothing? Assuming we can define "nothing," Why should nothing be a more natural state of affairs than something? In fact, we can give plausible scientific reason based on our best current knowledge of physics and cosmology that osmething more natural than nothing!" (God the failed hypothesis Pg 132.)
>
> "Nature is capable of building complex structures by processes of self-organization, how simplicity begets complexity. Consider the example of the snowflake, the beautiful six-pointed pattern of ice crystals that results from the direct freezing of water vaopr in the atmosphere. Our experience tells us that a snowflake is very ephemeral, melting quickly into drops of liquid water the exhibit far less structure. But that is only because we live in a relatively high-temperature environment, where heat reduces the fragile arrangement of crystals to a simpler liquid. Energy is required to break the symmetry of a snowflake." (God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)
>
> "In an environment where the ambient temperature is well below the melting point of ice, as it is in most of the universe far from the highly localized effects of stellar heating, any water should readily crystallize into complex asymetric structures. Snowflakes would be eternal, or at least would remain instact untill comic rays tore them apart."(God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)
>
> "This example illustrates that many simple systems of particles are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since "Nothing" is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would likely undergo a spoontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter." "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would be be that 'nothing' is unstable." (God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)

 

 

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

deludedgod, do you think sociopaths lack the mirror neuron response? Has there been a study that found lack of the mirror neuron function in anyone?

Interesting. Mirror neuron wiring faults tends to be associated with autism, not sociopaths. You are stepping out of my field and more into todangst's, however. at the far end of the spectrum, Autistic children have a severe inability to interact with others. They are incapable of normal speech, not because of a problem with formation of vocal chords or anything along those lines, but rather because the mirror neurons are wired improperly (or so the theory goes), ant any rate.

Sociopaths, on the other hand, have no problem of this sort. In fact, they tend to be better at speech than most and usually have high IQs. They are very slick and silver-tongued, the exact opposite of an autistic child. But even an autistic child should have a normal EQ. However, a sociopath lacks the ability to empathize. Again, I am not sure of this, the best person to talk to would be todangst.

I went to Wiki (yeah, I know...) and the article on mirror neurons speculated that they play a role in developing empathy. Sociopaths may not have empathy, but many are very good at getting what they want and part of that is being able to manipulate others, which might be hard to do without functional mirror neurons.

Then I checked out the parrot page, which I edited yesterday and got ****ed because they put it back the way it was and it's incorrect. They mislabeled a Panama Amazon as a yellow-naped Amazon. I told them their mistake and told them how to properly identify a yellow-naped Amazon, but today it's wrong again...D'OH!

Actually, all the Amazons with yellow on their heads are Amazona ochrecephala, but there are several subspecies. My bird is Amazona ochrecephala oratrix. A yellow-naped Amazon is Amazona ochrecephala auropalliata. The bird shown is most probably A. ochrecephala panamensis or A. ochrecephala ochrecephala.

LOL...just looked again and they put it back the way I had it. Oh well. I think the subspecies is A. o. panamensis, not A. o. ochrecephala. Whatever. If I change it again to reflect this belief, I wonder if it will "take." Laughing out loud

[MOD EDIT - removed curse word] 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
magilum

magilum wrote:

nonbobblehead wrote:
[weird preamble snipped] I wonder why though, if they are evolutionists, especially Darwinian evolutionists (which seems ubiquitous), they even feel caring about others?

 

You do realize that The Origin of The Species is a science book, not a guide to life itself, right? It seems religious people tend to look for direct equivalents in ideas that have excluded their conceits. That the anthropological evidence suggests civilizations ran, unabated, through the supposed time of a worldwide flood, doesn't mean anthropologists claim to have the meaning of life. It only suggests Noah's Ark is a fiction.

I have the origins of Species. Do YOU realize that Darwins Finches are still and always have been "birds?" They are not as yet Gerbils. "The world" in which Noah lived was utterly destroyed. By a flood.

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
Does the lion feel such a crushing weight of remorse or guilt when its prey, after an attempted  murderous attack, gets away with a shattered leg? Only to die in pain and agony ending up the carion meal of some other animal?

Does the lion indiscriminately kill members of his or her own pack?

Yes! The males routinely slaughter the young of a lioness to impregnate her themselves. Kind of like human abortion reasons. 
Quote:
Lions are violent and nasty creatures, but they have a set social order.
And yet no laws to curb the killing of children. Much like the states fighting Jessica's law. 
Quote:
Do bees, all endowed with stingers, use them constantly against their own hive simply because they can?
They are "programmed" to act like a collective. Another validating factor for ID to be scientific.
 

Quote:
Your premise suggests that every human being is potentially a sociopath.

umm, human history would lend its support to that being a reality. Especially the godless examples of genocide we ahve witnessed in our recent history. 

Quote:
Since you make a point about atheists, I'm assuming you're begging the question of morals being derived from religious dogma.

Scientists pose the theory that religions developed byb evolutionary processes to keep our sociopathic nature at bay. 

Quote:
In that case, we shouldn't see any religious person behaving deliberately in a manner inconsistent with his or her religion.
not if humans possess evil tendencies. Oops, I mean sociopathic tendencies. Excuse me. And history proves that over and over again that "we" do. [quoteIf you say they're not sincere in their faith, then how do we know who is sincere?
Test all things. And hold fats to that which is truth. Peaceful, nonviolent truth. Atheists have proven extremely violent. [quoteIf you say only “god” knows, then what sort of indicator is religion supposed to be for us?
We somehow have good and bad, right and wrong implanted within us. Children in a preschool will prove that. The big tough child gets all the toys, but the weaker little ones know it is wrong and cry. How does that happen?

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
Isn't cancer and disease just proof that the individual having the condition is just an inferior individual?

 

Quote:
A slippery slope argument? Please.

Not true. A caring atheist can only be caring for seelf-serving reasons. Animals do not possess a justice system.

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
It seems supernatural to care for others.

Quote:
Not at all. Your model of humanity is a dysfunctional straw-man and would have long gone extinct out of its incapacity for cooperation.

Straw-man? My model of humanity comes from the written record we call "history" of mankind. And many, many civilizations HAVE gone extinct.

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I have the origins

Quote:
I have the origins of Species. Do YOU realize that Darwins Finches are still and always have been "birds?" They are not as yet Gerbils. "The world" in which Noah lived was utterly destroyed. By a flood.

Haven't read it yet, then?

Quote:

Does the lion indiscriminately kill members of his or her own pack?

Yes! The males routinely slaughter the young of a lioness to impregnate her themselves. Kind of like human abortion reasons.

Which lions kill which other lions? And for what reason?

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source in·dis·crim·i·nate /ˌɪndɪˈskrɪmənɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-di-skrim-uh-nit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective

1.not discriminating; lacking in care, judgment, selectivity, etc.: indiscriminate in one's friendships.
2.not discriminate; haphazard; thoughtless: indiscriminate slaughter.
3.not kept apart or divided; thrown together; jumbled: an indiscriminate combination of colors and styles.

 

Quote:

Lions are violent and nasty creatures, but they have a set social order.

And yet no laws to curb the killing of children. Much like the states fighting Jessica's law.

You have an amazing ability to conflate, and an amazing ability to present evidence that damns your own position. I'm not going to explain what I mean, because I'm pointing this out for the people following this thread who understand evolution. I hold no hope for you.

Quote:

Quote:
Do bees, all endowed with stingers, use them constantly against their own hive simply because they can?

They are "programmed" to act like a collective. Another validating factor for ID to be scientific.

More properly, another example of an ID adherent who can't see the destruction of his own position inherent in the examples he gives! And, interestingly enough, an example of someone who doesn't know much about bees or lions, or humans, for that matter.

Quote:

Quote:
Your premise suggests that every human being is potentially a sociopath.

umm, human history would lend its support to that being a reality. Especially the godless examples of genocide we ahve witnessed in our recent history.

You hadn't considered that 99.99999999999999% of the people who live are not in history books, and that statistically, precious few of them were sociopaths?

Oh, and you hadn't considered that most genocides have had religious motivations, had you?

Quote:

Quote:
Since you make a point about atheists, I'm assuming you're begging the question of morals being derived from religious dogma.

Scientists pose the theory that religions developed byb evolutionary processes to keep our sociopathic nature at bay.

You know, the existence of an explanation for the formation of religion does not mean the religion is true -- only that there's an explanation of its existence.

Quote:

Quote:
In that case, we shouldn't see any religious person behaving deliberately in a manner inconsistent with his or her religion.

not if humans possess evil tendencies. Oops, I mean sociopathic tendencies. Excuse me. And history proves that over and over again that "we" do. [quoteIf you say they're not sincere in their faith, then how do we know who is sincere?

Test all things. And hold fats to that which is truth. Peaceful, nonviolent truth. Atheists have proven extremely violent. [quoteIf you say only “god” knows, then what sort of indicator is religion supposed to be for us?

We somehow have good and bad, right and wrong implanted within us. Children in a preschool will prove that. The big tough child gets all the toys, but the weaker little ones know it is wrong and cry. How does that happen?

You're insistent upon asserting the same thing repeatedly, and it's almost funny that your examples refute your assertions. Children in preschool demonstrate behaviors described by evolutionary theory. "Evil" and "good" are relative terms. The big kid feels pretty happy for having all the toys, no? It's good to be the big tough kid from a certain point of view, right?

Quote:
Straw-man? My model of humanity comes from the written record we call "history" of mankind. And many, many civilizations HAVE gone extinct.

Huh? Are you talking about history or science? They're quite separate, you know.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
nonbobblehead wrote: I

nonbobblehead wrote:
I have the origins of Species. Do YOU realize that Darwins Finches are still and always have been “birds?“ They are not as yet Gerbils.

 

You're not even describing the theory of evolution. Your refutation is moot, in addition to being the stupidest thing I've read today.

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
“The world“ in which Noah lived was utterly destroyed. By a flood.

 

Haha. Prove it.

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
Yes! The males routinely slaughter the young of a lioness to impregnate her themselves. Kind of like human abortion reasons. 

 

False, and false. The lion's behavior is unpleasant to us, but not indiscriminate or random. He wants to further his own genetic line, not that of another male. I have never heard this as a reason for abortion; feel free to point to an example.

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
And yet no laws to curb the killing of children. Much like the states fighting Jessica's law.

 

The lions are following their version of social order. I don't like it, but I'm not a lion.

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
[Bees] are “programmed“ to act like a collective. Another validating factor for ID to be scientific.

 

ID is a conclusion looking for validation by people who are already convinced of it. If you think that's science, you are profoundly misinformed.

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
umm, human history would lend its support to that being a reality. Especially the godless examples of genocide we ahve witnessed in our recent history.

 

So we're only recognizing “godless” examples of violence... not the ones explicitly inspired by religion. Oh, wait, that's right. I already addressed that in the part you snipped out.

 

magilum wrote:
Since you make a point about atheists, I'm assuming you're begging the question of morals being derived from religious dogma. In that case, we shouldn't see any religious person behaving deliberately in a manner inconsistent with his or her religion. If you say they're not sincere in their faith, then how do we know who is sincere? If you say only “god” knows, then what sort of indicator is religion supposed to be for us?

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
Scientists pose the theory that religions developed byb evolutionary processes to keep our sociopathic nature at bay.

 

What scientists propose this? Do they propose it as a validation of religious myths, or simply the sign of a compulsion on the part of man to create myths?

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
not if humans possess evil tendencies. Oops, I mean sociopathic tendencies. Excuse me. And history proves that over and over again that “we“ do.

 

Test all things. And hold fats to that which is truth. Peaceful, nonviolent truth.

 

I did, and I ended up throwing out the bible.

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
Atheists have proven extremely violent.

 

You had better not be pointing to the Soviets and the PRC. Both are political and economic systems (neither of which is suggested in the simple term “atheist”) with irrational cults of personality. I can point to religiously motivated mass murder, too. Is that where you want to go with this?

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
We somehow have good and bad, right and wrong implanted within us. Children in a preschool will prove that. The big tough child gets all the toys, but the weaker little ones know it is wrong and cry. How does that happen?

 

You refute yourself. Earlier in your post you said we're all potential sociopaths, but now we're inherently moral. You make the naked assertion that it's “implanted” as though using the physical terminology gave credence to what is still a supernatural argument with absolutely no evidence offered. If humans have a basic sense of morality and a tendency to defer to social order, your burden is to prove that this is not a natural aspect of the species.

 

nonbobblehead wrote:
Not true. A caring atheist can only be caring for seelf-serving reasons. Animals do not possess a justice system.

 

As opposed to the Christian who wants to go to heaven.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15764
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
That shows your complete

That shows your complete lack of understanding of evolution.

Evolution is not about "Survival of the fittest" which is a term that should be burried and put to rest.

It is about "Ability to adapt"

Lets say you came to rob me,being 18 years old with a knife and you were in perfect health. You weigh 250 pounds and were 6-5 feet all. But me, I am 75 years old and only weigh 150lbs and 5-5 feet tall but unknown to you I am a retired cop and  I have a 44 magnum, what then?

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15764
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
When humanity stops trying

When humanity stops trying to reach altruism and seekes consent and cooperation then maybe we can get beyond all the fictional bull****.

[MOD EDIT - removed cursing] 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
OK folks. THIS IS THE KILL

OK folks.

THIS IS THE KILL 'EM WITH KINDNESS FORUM.

 No cursing.  No insults.  No name-calling.

Some of the posts are perilously close to the line.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Again, didn't respond to

Again, didn't respond to me. And I offered a rebuttal to his ex nihilo challenge, to which he did not respond. Ah well, to be expected. Perhaps the OP should read

Man, The Moral Animal

The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker

The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker

to get a clearer understanding of how evolution brings morality.

[MOD EDIT to remove insult] 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


ABx
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
I had mentioned in another

I had mentioned in another thread that there was a show, not too long ago, on early man. They pointed out that there were a lot of candidates for who would become modern man (as opposed to the theist's concept that an ape suddenly spit out a modern man one day). One of the primary reasons that these other species didn't make it is their lack of cohesive empathy. They had varying degrees, but without the empathy that we have, they didn't have a cohesive group, they didn't help eachother out, didn't mind as much when a family member died, and so they didn't try as hard to keep eachother alive and well.

Empathy and altruism WAS our evolutionary advantage, it's what give us the advantage to survive better than other human-like species, and god was/is not a prerequisite. It doesn't take a genius to realize that if you behave in a way that endears others toward you, then they are more likely to provide help when needed. If nobody else likes you, then you're going to be on your own and it will be much harder to get what you need to survive and stay alive in dangerous situations.

Despite the ongoing claims by theists that evolution equates solely with being the biggest, fastest, and most vicious predator, that's not the only things involved with survival. There are tons of animals that have survived longer than any others without being big, fast, or predatory. Humans were never the biggest, strongest, fastest, we didn't have the most acute senses, or anything of the like. Quite the contrary; relatively speaking we're slow, soft, weak, clumsy, and have among the worst senses of sight, smell, hearing, and so on. What we had was intelligence and numbers, the later requiring empathy. Using those two primary factors we were able to hunt and kill and use the fruits of that labor for food, clothing, bone weapons, heat from fats, and any number of things. We could gather food and supplies. One of the biggest advantages we have that separate us from other animals is that we have the unique ability to adapt our surroundings to suit our needs - so in a way our evolutionary advantage was the ability to not need to evolve, to some degree anyway. We make ourselves resistant to the elements with protective clothing and shelter, we can make boats, we can plant gardens and crops, we can domesticate other animals to provide labor and food, and so on. We can gather plants, and are intelligent enough to even figure out which ones will work as medicines and ward off parasites. With the combinationi of intelligence and empathy, we can and do improve eachother's quality of life. Doing so benefits the whole group, as each have abilities that combine to give us enough advantages to dominate the planet and overcome nearly any hardship without having to change anything about our bodies.

So that's a bit of a rant, but the idea that intelligent design is the only answer only works if, as usual, you either don't know or ignore the facts. An ape didn't just spontaneously give birth to a skinny hairless being with a big brain and straight back, and we weren't simply endowed with morality in full in one shot. There were a lot of variations, and ours just happened to allow us to survive where the others did not.

If it were just a matter of physical prowess over emotional capacity, the neandertals would have survived and we would have died out.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: OK

Susan wrote:

OK folks.

THIS IS THE KILL 'EM WITH KINDNESS FORUM.

No cursing. No insults. No name-calling.

Some of the posts are perilously close to the line.

 

I suggest a move out of here.

I'm tired of people useing this place as a sheild and platform for attacks. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
This thread being moved

This thread being moved from Kill 'Em With Kindness to the Atheist vs Theist forums.