At 6/2/12 03:24 PM, Ilssm wrote:

At 6/2/12 03:10 PM, Ilssm wrote:

Wow, I actually kind of feel sorry for you.

Whoops, I can't read, I misinterpreted your post.

im curious George, so what did think i ment the first time?

At 6/2/12 02:19 PM, Ilssm wrote: Ah. Well, I tolerate everyone. Although I have more respect for Christians then I do atheists, because the ones I know in RL are actually pretty tolerant

My family on my father's side is mostly Irish Catholic, and my grandmother is Baptist, and they're all good people.

pretty much the only atheists I know in RL and on here bash religion whenever they get a chance.

I think it has to do with being able to vent frustrations without offending people you know personally.

I am irreligious.

I was thinking that in the strictest sense, everyone is agnostic because no one KNOWS whether or not there is a god or any other thing like that. If people sincerely KNEW there was a God, then wouldn't everyone think the same way? I recall Richard Dawkins saying something about a scale where no one knew there was a god so even the most religious or non-religious would still not be 100% sure there was or wasn't a God. Of course, he also said the same thing about fairies and no one cares about those.

I believe in all god's so obviously I can't be a christian.
If i believe in allah,buddah and unicorns,ghosts and mystical beings that have great power such as satan I obviously can't be atheist either but I believe none of those thing's are alive anymore.
They all died out.
Everything dies one way or another.

At 6/5/12 11:59 AM, Ericho wrote: I was thinking that in the strictest sense, everyone is agnostic because no one KNOWS whether or not there is a god or any other thing like that.

Gnostics claim to have factual knowledge of the matter, though. There are some out there.

At 5/25/12 12:48 AM, CWBHOODJONES wrote: Do you have a religion; do you believe in a god or are you Agnostic or pure Atheist? Why do you believe what you believe or choose not to believe?

I personally am a Christian. I believe the Holy Bible. I choose the Holy Bible because it is what I was taught to believe from since I was a kid and I also do think when I pray to Jesus listens.

lol ure christian that meens u therefore stupid idiot IQ much lower than mine at least by 40 points lol learn be not so stupid pls haha u blieve stupid ignorent fairy talees from 2000 year ago u ever thought it means u stupid now??? well lemme tell u that thats what it do means........ RON PAUL 2012 KONY IS INNOCENT

At 6/5/12 11:59 AM, Ericho wrote: I was thinking that in the strictest sense, everyone is agnostic because no one KNOWS whether or not there is a god or any other thing like that.

There is a measurable way of determining if a specific god exists or not in an abstract sense.

You start with an agreed defining term of the word 'god', then take the basic attributes of that specific 'god' and compare it to the knowledge we've obtained and you get your answer. The word 'god' is so nebulous you can whack the label on whatever you want.

A good example would be to look at mythology or better yet, look at young earth creationism. It's demonstrably false in almost every claim it makes about the origin and progression of pretty much everything. So that very specific god cannot possibly exist because it contradicts what we know about the universe. It's possible that it could be true in the forthcoming future, but highly unlikely.

So to a certain degree, we can know if a god doesn't exist. But it's usually an extreme example.

At 6/7/12 03:10 PM, Miigga wrote: IQ much lower than mine at least by 40 points

First you claim you're smart...

RON PAUL 2012 KONY IS INNOCENT

...and then you explicitly tell us otherwise. Good work. (Bond villain slow clap)

At 6/7/12 03:36 PM, The-universe wrote: So to a certain degree, we can know if a god doesn't exist. But it's usually an extreme example.

Way overthinking it, and on an irrelevant question at that.

Don't use logic to prove/disprove the existence of a God. God doesn't exist on that wavelength. God is an emotional and faith-based entity, not a logical and scientific one.

Because God is emotional and faith-based the question of whether God exists is an irrelevant one. Either you believe or you don't, completely separate of the answer as to whether God can be scientifically, perceptually, or logically proven to exist or not exist. In other words, debating whether God exists is like debating whether a song in enjoyable based on the beats per minute.

At 6/6/12 02:58 AM, Sense-Offender wrote: Gnostics claim to have factual knowledge of the matter, though. There are some out there.

Yes, I know there are people who CLAIM they know whether or not God exists. But if they really did KNOW, then everyone else would believe them so it's obvious they're exaggerating, no matter how much they claim they believe in something.

At 5/25/12 12:48 AM, CWBHOODJONES wrote: Do you have a religion; do you believe in a god or are you Agnostic or pure Atheist? Why do you believe what you believe or choose not to believe?

My pops was raised Roman Catholic; he had some pretty bad experiences with the church that turned him away from organized religious, but not necessarily the beliefs at the core of the religion. My mom was raised Jewish; her worldview is atheistic (she thinks some version of the "ancient astronaut theory" is 'probably true', but she doesn't act like she's 100% certain about it) but she does maintain some Jewish traditions and customs. Neither parent forced any particular system of belief on me. I'm not agnostic, but I'm not especially 'religious' either. It's more a philosophic thing for me.

My worldview is basically panentheistic in nature. It's a pretty broad term... which to me is fine, considering how broad the subject matter is. I don't want to start rolling out the classically trite and cliched phrases that tend to go along with describing it, so I'll just leave it at that for now.

At 6/8/12 11:10 AM, Ericho wrote: Yes, I know there are people who CLAIM they know whether or not God exists. But if they really did KNOW, then everyone else would believe them so

That... doesn't make any sense.

Just because someone knows something (whether it's about God, baseball, or anything else) doesn't mean that other people will automatically believe them. I could be 100% certain AND 100% accurate about a particular subject, but that says nothing at all about whether other people will be convinced by me or not.

Neither. I'm wiccan. It makes me very happy, prompts me to think more broadly. I have noticed since I became wiccan I am more relaxed and less quick to anger.

At 6/9/12 03:14 AM, BenwaHakubi wrote: Neither. I'm wiccan.

When I see wiccan adults, it makes me think that they are just wishing they were back in high school, which is odd, because the probability is extremely high that they weren't popular in high school...

Rarely have I ever seen a genuine wiccan.

At 6/7/12 05:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/7/12 03:36 PM, The-universe wrote: So to a certain degree, we can know if a god doesn't exist. But it's usually an extreme example.

Way overthinking it, and on an irrelevant question at that.

Overthinking it?

Don't use logic to prove/disprove the existence of a God. God doesn't exist on that wavelength. God is an emotional and faith-based entity, not a logical and scientific one.

Which god? All of them? Like I said in my previous post, the definition of god is nebulous and doesn't fall under one specific category. All you could do is argue semantics over the definition.

Because God is emotional and faith-based the question of whether God exists is an irrelevant one. Either you believe or you don't, completely separate of the answer as to whether God can be scientifically, perceptually, or logically proven to exist or not exist. In other words, debating whether God exists is like debating whether a song in enjoyable based on the beats per minute.

Since you never bothered to read my previous post properly, you CAN logically and/or scientifically analyse the possibility of a god by comparing it's qualities with what we know about the universe. If I say that the stars are holes through a world sized quilt that cover the earth, then there's no possibility that my particular god exists because that's not how the universe functions.

So there you have it, I've just disproven a god.

Agnostic.

I'm agnostic. I feel like there could be a God, but who knows really. I'm not going to devote my life to believing that something does or doesn't exist until I'm sure, so I like keeping an open mind.

At 6/11/12 11:39 PM, Scarface wrote: I'm agnostic. I feel like there could be a God, but who knows really. I'm not going to devote my life to believing that something does or doesn't exist until I'm sure, so I like keeping an open mind.

It isn't cola, and it isn't root beer. Nobody knows what it tastes like and nobody ever will!!!!

At 6/12/12 12:16 AM, Camarohusky wrote: It isn't cola, and it isn't root beer. Nobody knows what it tastes like and nobody ever will!!!!

I belong to the church of Dr. Pepper! You can't know!

God, if it exists, is probably somthing so complex that most people would not classify it as a god. Therefore I am agnostic.

At 6/16/12 01:30 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I see it this way: Even if God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter, because people are nice to each other because of Him. Why are they nice to each other? Because if you accept God, you also accept that we are his children.

You don't need faith in a god to be a good person. And I find it slightly unsettling when people insist otherwise.

I say, why not both? Honestly though, I consider myself a Christian Agnostic.

I believe there is a higher power out there, and that complex life as we know it was not created without reason or purpose. I also love the Christian values. The testament of Jesus really is a powerful one, the message to live for others and not yourself is definitely something the world can use more of. At the same time, I also realize that there are flaws in Christianity that simply can't be ignored (too lazy to state the specifics), this is why I also call myself agnostic.

In a purely Christian sense, if someone would ask me whether or not I would go to heaven or hell, I'd say hell. I don't feel I should commit to a religion without first being open-minded and figuring out the entire truth for myself first.

At 6/16/12 04:50 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 6/16/12 01:30 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I see it this way: Even if God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter, because people are nice to each other because of Him. Why are they nice to each other? Because if you accept God, you also accept that we are his children.

You don't need faith in a god to be a good person. And I find it slightly unsettling when people insist otherwise.

This. Morality is what causes you to be a good person. The idea that you should treat others well, because you too wish to be treated well.

At 6/17/12 12:37 AM, Scarface wrote:

At 6/16/12 04:50 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 6/16/12 01:30 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I see it this way: Even if God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter, because people are nice to each other because of Him. Why are they nice to each other? Because if you accept God, you also accept that we are his children.

You don't need faith in a god to be a good person. And I find it slightly unsettling when people insist otherwise.

This. Morality is what causes you to be a good person. The idea that you should treat others well, because you too wish to be treated well.

Or even better it works without religion on an evolutionary sense. Because we are a heavily socially structured species, if everyone had the compulsion (or any species for that matter) to kill each other just by the sight of someone else, we'd be extinct.

Obviously it's not a perfectly working system because there's rivalry and violence in almost every species known, but it works nonetheless. Even different species have been known to work almost completely harmoniously with each other. A home grown example would be to buy a plecostomus and stick it in your fish tank and watch how it helps keep the tank clean by eating the algae and uneaten food (amongst other things) while being completely none aggressive to the other fish.

At 6/17/12 02:45 PM, The-universe wrote:

At 6/17/12 12:37 AM, Scarface wrote:

At 6/16/12 04:50 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 6/16/12 01:30 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I see it this way: Even if God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter, because people are nice to each other because of Him. Why are they nice to each other? Because if you accept God, you also accept that we are his children.

You don't need faith in a god to be a good person. And I find it slightly unsettling when people insist otherwise.

This. Morality is what causes you to be a good person. The idea that you should treat others well, because you too wish to be treated well.

Or even better it works without religion on an evolutionary sense. Because we are a heavily socially structured species, if everyone had the compulsion (or any species for that matter) to kill each other just by the sight of someone else, we'd be extinct.

Obviously it's not a perfectly working system because there's rivalry and violence in almost every species known, but it works nonetheless. Even different species have been known to work almost completely harmoniously with each other. A home grown example would be to buy a plecostomus and stick it in your fish tank and watch how it helps keep the tank clean by eating the algae and uneaten food (amongst other things) while being completely none aggressive to the other fish.

I disagree with your statement. Animals and humans are not, by nature, moral, especially in an evolutionary sense. Animals may work together and develop mutual relationships, but this is merely for the sake of survival, not because of morality. True altruism in nature is nonexistent. Organisms may engage in such behavior for mutual gain, or may assist, say, a close relative in the name of further spreading their genes, but otherwise, there is no reason to do so. With limited resources, organisms will not survive if they are charitable "for charity's sake." Organisms do survive, however, if they eliminate competition, reproduce as much as physically possible to spread genes, steal resources from other organisms, exert as little energy and as few resources as possible to survive, better themselves as a result of observation from another organism, consume as many resources as possible, due to their limited supply, and exert their dominance over other organisms in order to attract mates and further the spread of their own genes.

As a matter of fact, the immorality of nature has been one of the most prolific themes presented throughout literature in history. This is a concept introduced in the Bible, that humans, by nature, are immoral, and it is an inevitability for them to commit sin as a result of their innate nature. Religion seeks to control these desires, even though it is aware that humanity can never truly escape them, as they are bound to act as so as a result of nature. Sigmund Freud developed an entire concept of humanity struggling with its innate, primal desires and its moral obligations to society, which I am sure everyone is aware of. The point is, humanity, by nature, is immoral, but seeks to balance these primal desires with its obligations to society. It is only through struggling against nature that humanity can retain its morality, and it is only through balancing its morality and primal desires that individuals can remain human.

This concept extends to other literature as well. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is one of the more famous examples. In this novel, Jekyll struggles between two identities: Mr. Hyde, who is described similarly as an animal and partakes in violence and other morally reprehensible acts, and Dr. Jekyll, a religious, logical man who is viewed very highly by society. By the end of the book, Jekyll admits that he had always had a "Mr. Hyde" within him, and sought to isolate the two identities through a potion. One of the prevailing themes of the book, however, is that because Jekyll isolates the two, instead of formulating a balance, he exerts both through extremes-- Dr. Jekyll is extremely moral, but Mr. Hyde is extremely reprehensible. This eventually reaches a boiling point where Hyde murders an individual. In the context of the setting of this novel, the Victorian Era, this makes sense; one of the motifs of this time was an emphasis on appearance and of suppression of desire. It doesn't just end at this book either; Lord of the Flies and The Heart of Darkness both sought to portray worlds where humanity succumbs to their primal desires, and makes note to the reader of the consequences that result in doing so.

I hear arguments from anti-religious individuals that religion plays no role in morality. These individuals claim that such concepts introduced by religion simply boil down to simple ideas such as "don't steal" and "don't resort to violence" and that humanity could easily have discovered this without religion. I look at evolution, literature, and philosophy and find this incredibly hard to believe. Even with religion acting as a moral base, humans continue to struggle with "simple" concepts such as these every single day. I find it hard to believe that religion plays absolutely no role in morality, when humans, by nature, are designed to be immoral in the name of survival. The existence of religion alone shows that humanity has the power to resist nature, instead of becoming enslaved by it. Quote out-of-context passages in the Bible about slavery and violence, but in the end, religion is one of several factors that differentiates humans from animals.

At 6/17/12 08:08 PM, KeyserSozed wrote: I disagree with your statement.

Animals and humans are not, by nature, moral, especially in an evolutionary sense. Animals may work together and develop mutual relationships, but this is merely for the sake of survival, not because of morality. True altruism in nature is nonexistent. Organisms may engage in such behavior for mutual gain, or may assist, say, a close relative in the name of further spreading their genes, but otherwise, there is no reason to do so.

You say that Altruism is non-existent in nature, yet the wiki page you cited not only defines what altruism and kin selection is, but then lists over a dozen examples altruism happening at the bottom of the page!

Did you even read your own citation? It says that natural altruism happens in the first sentence on the first paragraph.

With limited resources, organisms will not survive if they are charitable "for charity's sake." Organisms do survive, however, if they eliminate competition, reproduce as much as physically possible to spread genes, steal resources from other organisms, exert as little energy and as few resources as possible to survive, better themselves as a result of observation from another organism, consume as many resources as possible, due to their limited supply, and exert their dominance over other organisms in order to attract mates and further the spread of their own genes.

That scenario would work if they had an unlimited supply of resources, which as you can tell they do not. If rabbit eliminated their natural predators, they would overpopulate and die off from starvation.

But nonetheless, your own first citation about altruism makes the rest of your post null and void. But I'll humour you with a TL:DR response for the remaining paragraphs.

Stop citing fiction and applying it to real world situations while completely ignoring the ludicrous aspects of it. Unless you want to admit that blacks are evil, magic potions exist and a pack of kids will turn murderous overnight even though most people who are put in survival situations do nothing of the sort.

Freud's work is theoretical.

And lastly, anti-religious people don't just say the bible has no play within morality, but also religion is immoral itself. Unless you also want to admit that butchering gays and disobedient kids is a moral act. Or giving away your daughters to violent gangs to save two complete strangers. Or chucking someone in a giant fish because he wouldn't convert thousands of people.

Need I go on?

At 6/18/12 04:43 AM, The-universe wrote:

At 6/17/12 08:08 PM, KeyserSozed wrote: I disagree with your statement.

Animals and humans are not, by nature, moral, especially in an evolutionary sense. Animals may work together and develop mutual relationships, but this is merely for the sake of survival, not because of morality. True altruism in nature is nonexistent. Organisms may engage in such behavior for mutual gain, or may assist, say, a close relative in the name of further spreading their genes, but otherwise, there is no reason to do so.

You say that Altruism is non-existent in nature, yet the wiki page you cited not only defines what altruism and kin selection is, but then lists over a dozen examples altruism happening at the bottom of the page!

Did you even read your own citation? It says that natural altruism happens in the first sentence on the first paragraph.

You missed the entire point of why I posted the article. Yes, it states that altruism exists, but not true altruism, or "doing good for goodness sake" The entire reason why animals are altruistic is part of a game theory developed by evolutionists. Altruism exists solely for a strategic purpose in enhancing survival. Do you even know what kin selection is? It's the idea that organisms will attempt to aid their own kin, sure, but the reason organisms do so is to promote the spread of their own genes There are eight concepts explained in this article that support this notion. All of these concepts can be applied to the examples below.

Did you even spend more than five minutes reading the citation at all? There was even a link to the Selfish gene on there.

With limited resources, organisms will not survive if they are charitable "for charity's sake." Organisms do survive, however, if they eliminate competition, reproduce as much as physically possible to spread genes, steal resources from other organisms, exert as little energy and as few resources as possible to survive, better themselves as a result of observation from another organism, consume as many resources as possible, due to their limited supply, and exert their dominance over other organisms in order to attract mates and further the spread of their own genes.

That scenario would work if they had an unlimited supply of resources, which as you can tell they do not. If rabbit eliminated their natural predators, they would overpopulate and die off from starvation.

But nonetheless, your own first citation about altruism makes the rest of your post null and void. But I'll humour you with a TL:DR response for the remaining paragraphs.

Stop citing fiction and applying it to real world situations while completely ignoring the ludicrous aspects of it. Unless you want to admit that blacks are evil, magic potions exist and a pack of kids will turn murderous overnight even though most people who are put in survival situations do nothing of the sort.

Freud's work is theoretical.

And lastly, anti-religious people don't just say the bible has no play within morality, but also religion is immoral itself. Unless you also want to admit that butchering gays and disobedient kids is a moral act. Or giving away your daughters to violent gangs to save two complete strangers. Or chucking someone in a giant fish because he wouldn't convert thousands of people.

Need I go on?

Once again, you missed the entire point of the post. The point is that immorality being human nature has been tackled again and again and again by numerous authors, scholars, and intellectuals. The fact that so many of these works exist emphasize how prevalent it has been throughout history and human society. All of these authors and writers write to make a point about society, and these works have been prevalent throughout history.

Freud's work is "theoretical." It's hilariously ironic that you resort to rhetoric that fanatical fundamentalists use in order to discredit evolution. Freud's work has been discussed and analyzed for years.

And clearly all religion is evil. Buddhism, which teaches overcoming material gain and desires, strength through suffering, and overcoming of hardship is clearly evil. Christianity has clearly been a destructive force of nature, leading to some of the most influential developments in artand literature that are still ingrained in society today. Islam is evil too, with the word itself meaning surrender or submission in Arabic, after all. And its not as if there have been religions such as Jainism, which has sought to prevent the destruction of all life, even that of a household fly. Religion is obviously destructive to science too. There have never been any religious scientistsor mathematicians in history. Ever.

At 6/18/12 05:47 AM, KeyserSozed wrote: You missed the entire point of why I posted the article. Yes, it states that altruism exists, but not true altruism, or "doing good for goodness sake"

Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks and even tigers.

So tell me exactly why they do this?

The entire reason why animals are altruistic is part of a game theory developed by evolutionists. Altruism exists solely for a strategic purpose in enhancing survival.

So you're saying that 'true' altruism is basically doing good for no reason at all? And because of this everything is immoral? Then in that case 'true' altruism is not presented in religions because most religions that bark orders offered a reward so it's a strategy as opposed to a goodness that causes altruistic habits.

Do you even know what kin selection is? It's the idea that organisms will attempt to aid their own kin, sure, but the reason organisms do so is to promote the spread of their own genes

But you've admitted that there's inner species relations while also saying that they will ruthlessly compete with one another.

Did you even spend more than five minutes reading the citation at all? There was even a link to the Selfish gene on there.

Yes, that discusses gene duplication. Not psychological characteristics.

Once again, you missed the entire point of the post. The point is that immorality being human nature has been tackled again and again and again by numerous authors, scholars, and intellectuals.

And your point in this sentence is? That it's been done so we shouldn't?

The fact that so many of these works exist emphasize how prevalent it has been throughout history and human society. All of these authors and writers write to make a point about society, and these works have been prevalent throughout history.

And the Jurassic Park novel is to emphasise that the elderly shouldn't climb steep hills, right? RIGHT?

Once again, the books you cited are FICTION.

Freud's work is "theoretical." It's hilariously ironic that you resort to rhetoric that fanatical fundamentalists use in order to discredit evolution. Freud's work has been discussed and analyzed for years.

Yes, and so has many other things.

And clearly all religion is evil. Buddhism, which teaches overcoming material gain and desires, strength through suffering, and overcoming of hardship is clearly evil.

Who said religion is evil? I said the bible is immoral.

Christianity has clearly been a destructive force of nature, leading to some of the most influential developments in artand literature that are still ingrained in society today.

And turning woman into stone, drowning ample amounts of people, turning cities to rubble and killing pretty much any child, woman, homosexual, slave etc etc etc who blinks wrongly. Right there in the text my old chum.

Islam is evil too, with the word itself meaning surrender or submission in Arabic, after all. And its not as if there have been religions such as Jainism, which has sought to prevent the destruction of all life, even that of a household fly.

Do we really need to carry on with your straw man?

Religion is obviously destructive to science too. There have never been any religious scientistsor mathematicians in history. Ever.

You're right, but the demographic of scientists and belief is always they're majority deist, agnostic or atheist. And who are the biggest critics of Science? Oh that's right, THE RELIGIOUS!

At 6/18/12 06:54 AM, The-universe wrote:

At 6/18/12 05:47 AM, KeyserSozed wrote: You missed the entire point of why I posted the article. Yes, it states that altruism exists, but not true altruism, or "doing good for goodness sake"

Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks and even tigers.

So tell me exactly why they do this?

The entire reason why animals are altruistic is part of a game theory developed by evolutionists. Altruism exists solely for a strategic purpose in enhancing survival.

So you're saying that 'true' altruism is basically doing good for no reason at all? And because of this everything is immoral? Then in that case 'true' altruism is not presented in religions because most religions that bark orders offered a reward so it's a strategy as opposed to a goodness that causes altruistic habits.

Do you even know what kin selection is? It's the idea that organisms will attempt to aid their own kin, sure, but the reason organisms do so is to promote the spread of their own genes

But you've admitted that there's inner species relations while also saying that they will ruthlessly compete with one another.

Did you even spend more than five minutes reading the citation at all? There was even a link to the Selfish gene on there.

Yes, that discusses gene duplication. Not psychological characteristics.

Once again, you missed the entire point of the post. The point is that immorality being human nature has been tackled again and again and again by numerous authors, scholars, and intellectuals.

And your point in this sentence is? That it's been done so we shouldn't?

The fact that so many of these works exist emphasize how prevalent it has been throughout history and human society. All of these authors and writers write to make a point about society, and these works have been prevalent throughout history.

And the Jurassic Park novel is to emphasise that the elderly shouldn't climb steep hills, right? RIGHT?

Once again, the books you cited are FICTION.

Freud's work is "theoretical." It's hilariously ironic that you resort to rhetoric that fanatical fundamentalists use in order to discredit evolution. Freud's work has been discussed and analyzed for years.

Yes, and so has many other things.

And clearly all religion is evil. Buddhism, which teaches overcoming material gain and desires, strength through suffering, and overcoming of hardship is clearly evil.

Who said religion is evil? I said the bible is immoral.

Christianity has clearly been a destructive force of nature, leading to some of the most influential developments in artand literature that are still ingrained in society today.

And turning woman into stone, drowning ample amounts of people, turning cities to rubble and killing pretty much any child, woman, homosexual, slave etc etc etc who blinks wrongly. Right there in the text my old chum.

Islam is evil too, with the word itself meaning surrender or submission in Arabic, after all. And its not as if there have been religions such as Jainism, which has sought to prevent the destruction of all life, even that of a household fly.

Do we really need to carry on with your straw man?

Religion is obviously destructive to science too. There have never been any religious scientistsor mathematicians in history. Ever.

You're right, but the demographic of scientists and belief is always they're majority deist, agnostic or atheist. And who are the biggest critics of Science? Oh that's right, THE RELIGIOUS!

Alright. Allow me to reiterate.

The point is is that an animal does not act altruistic because of a need to be moral, or because of obligations to society. The only reason an animal will act altruistic is because of an ulterior motive that would somehow enhance its chances for survival. If you acted nice and friendly to a millionaire because you knew they would give you money if you did, how can you possibly say that is moral? Inter species relations exist because of ruthless competition.

One of the major reasons why literature exists is to send a message to society. Once again, it seems you continue to miss the point of my posts. 1984 is fictional, yet it is widely considered one of the most influential works of all time. Why? Because it introduced the dangers of a totalitarian society, censorship, and other issues that were not widely thought of until Orwell brought them up. But it's fictional, so therefore it's irrelevant, right?

The point of Jurassic Park wasn't "to avoid steep hills." It was to demonstrate the potential dangers of science and human ambition. But once again, because it's fictional, any message it tries to send to its audience must be completely irrelevant by your logic, right?

The same applies to other works of literature throughout history. Authors have written about the immorality of nature as a focal point of literature for hundreds of years. The fact that it is written so many times, by so many people, shows that it is prevalent. If thousands of people wrote about government corruption in books for the past decade, then what would that tell you? That government corruption is obviously a prevalent and relevant issue in society, because so many people feel the need to discuss it.

And you clearly stated that in your previous post, anti-religious individuals don't only think the Bible is immoral, but that religion is immoral as well. And then you turn around and state that you didn't say religion is immoral, only the Bible is? And then you claim that I made a straw man, even though I was directly addressing your previous point? What?