Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/30/08 04:47 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote:

At 1/30/08 12:05 PM, zoolrule wrote: Can god create a stone that he cant lift?"

'All knowing'=/='Omnipotent' Or even a phyiscal entity for that matter.

So..you don't believe god is all-powerful?

At 1/30/08 04:47 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote: Can god create a stone that he cant lift?"

Yes and then he'll lift it. If God is all powerful, he wouldn't be restricted by paradoxes and contradictions. God would be able to do things that would mindfuck us all.

i'd still like to see passages indicating the Bible should be taken literally SM.

At 2/1/08 01:12 AM, SolInvictus wrote: i'd still like to see passages indicating the Bible should be taken literally SM.

Well, I don't know of any passages that indicates the Bible should not be taken literally.

And if you take it symbolically, when how are you to sort what parts are symbolical and not? The Bible has no such guide. How are you to know that Noah's ark was just some moral story, but Jesus really died on the cross?

For me, symbolical reading of the Bible seems more like some kind of excuse, a last way out when reality just crashed too much with what the Bible says.

"Yeah, I know it says there was a global food, and it goes in such great detail that it even mentions how high the flood was, but it isn't true at all. It's just a story with symbolical meaning."

If somebody is to argue that it's symbolical, then they either need to justify every instance they say so, or take the WHOLE Bible symbolical. Cherry picking is not a valid option.

At 2/1/08 02:44 AM, Drakim wrote: Cherry picking is not a valid option.

Ugh, I know this frustrates me so much.
It's come to a stage where it seems as though a large portion of Christians don't believe in half the bible.

But some of the rationalizations don't even make sense to me.
For instance, if Adam and Eve & the fall of man are 'metaphorical', what accounts for the hugely flawed nature of the human race?
It kind of cancels out any notion of intelligent design.

And they don't follow slavery or a flat, stationary Earth either.

Tisk tisk what terrible followers they are. They should stone some teengers to get on Gods good side lol

At 2/1/08 04:07 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 2/1/08 02:44 AM, Drakim wrote: Cherry picking is not a valid option.

Ugh, I know this frustrates me so much.
It's come to a stage where it seems as though a large portion of Christians don't believe in half the bible.

But some of the rationalizations don't even make sense to me.
For instance, if Adam and Eve & the fall of man are 'metaphorical', what accounts for the hugely flawed nature of the human race?
It kind of cancels out any notion of intelligent design.

From the arguments I've heard, it's about free will. Jesus didn't really die for the sin of Adam and Eve because they didn't exist, but instead, Adam and Eve represents humanity and how we sin no matter what. (so he actually dies for your personal sins, not the apple thing).

However, this implies that God created us sinful, or at least super prone to sin. It's kinda hard to swallow that an loving God creates humans in such a way, and punishes the humans for those faults, and then gives them a solution that is full of holes and very unreliable (the greater majority of the world will always be non-Christians).

At 2/1/08 06:15 AM, Drakim wrote: and then gives them a solution that is full of holes and very unreliable (the greater majority of the world will always be non-Christians).

Give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day. Give him Religion and he'll starve to death praying for a fish.

I'm in such a giddy mood today.

5) Never did i say once that atheists got their morality from evolution, i said Atheists have no ground to think on a western moral basis because Evolution encourages human beings to do whatever it takes to beat others in competition for survival. The only reason people don't is because most of them either 1, lack the ambition, or 2, suffer from moral inhibbition based on western standards of morality. [Remember your middle ages, the church tells people to do things [be humble, chaste, poor] and they go off doing the exact opposite, and flourish at the same time?

That's a common misconception of evolution. Evolution is not about "survival of the fittest" when fittest means "strongest, most powerful". Instead "survivial of the fittest" refers instead to the survival of the "most apt" - those that fit the most with their surroundings. From this understanding an idea about endless competition between individuals can not be garnered.

At 2/1/08 06:19 AM, Brick-top wrote: Give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day. Give him Religion and he'll starve to death praying for a fish.

I'm in such a giddy mood today.

Nice quote, the sad part about it, its true

Atheism doesn't have people who use violence to express themselves. Therefore atheism rules.

And wether or not people's beliefs are true should be irrelevant. Believing in anything isn't harmfull. But what blind faith causes some people to do is entirely different.

At 2/1/08 11:18 AM, Tjalve wrote: Atheism doesn't have people who use violence to express themselves. Therefore atheism rules.

I hate when people define Atheism as something you are, like a religion.
Atheism is something you are NOT, you are not believing in god.

No, we aren't a cult or religionen. But all atheists refuse to connect themselves to a religionen. Therefore we have something in common. We share the same belief.

And that's why I can speak of myself and all other atheists as a "race" if you like. In the same way I do about myself and all other, caucasian people (I'm caucasian). It's exactly the same way religious people speak about themselves and other members of their religion. I don't see the problem.

At 2/1/08 02:44 AM, Drakim wrote: Well, I don't know of any passages that indicates the Bible should not be taken literally.

2 Corinthians 3:6, with regards to the new covenant "the letter kills, but the spirit gives life."

1 Corinthians 9:19-22 says that one of the laws of Moses is figurative not literal.

Galatians 4:24 says the story of Abraham is an allegory.

At 2/1/08 01:48 PM, Tjalve wrote: No, we aren't a cult or religionen. But all atheists refuse to connect themselves to a religionen. Therefore we have something in common. We share the same belief.

And that's why I can speak of myself and all other atheists as a "race" if you like. In the same way I do about myself and all other, caucasian people (I'm caucasian). It's exactly the same way religious people speak about themselves and other members of their religion. I don't see the problem.

The problem is that we don't have ANY other thing in common other than the lack of belief in God. Some atheist might believe in the supernatural, while some are naturalists commies.

Christians share a lot more than just belief in Jesus. They tend to have a range of things that they believe in, such as the Bible, Christian teachings and morals, etc.

At 2/1/08 02:03 PM,

The problem is that we don't have ANY other thing in common other than the lack of belief in God. Some atheist might believe in the supernatural, while some are naturalists commies.

Christians share a lot more than just belief in Jesus. They tend to have a range of things that they believe in, such as the Bible, Christian teachings and morals, etc.

That IS true. But at the same time, christians also have a lot of variety. It's not like you either believe in God or you don't. I know a lot of christians who aknowledge evolution, and some who don't . Some who are convinced God exists and that Jesus walked on whatever and whatever, and some who don't. But they are members of the exact same church. Speaking of which, there are (as you obviously know) several churches with different beliefs. But they all derrive from the basic concept of christianity. So if atheists are not to be considered a "race", then christians in general shouldn't either. Same goes for all religions.

But I do see your point.

oh dear, myspace vs atheism
http://www.cleveland.com/living/plaindea ler/index.ssf?/base/living-0/12017720863 10820.xml&coll=2

haha why do I KNOW we're not getting the whole story here?

At 2/1/08 05:40 PM, poxpower wrote: oh dear, myspace vs atheism
http://www.cleveland.com/living/plaindea ler/index.ssf?/base/living-0/12017720863 10820.xml&coll=2

haha why do I KNOW we're not getting the whole story here?

It's resolved now. The myspace group is restored, and it became apparent that it was a moderator with some hate for atheist who had abused his position.

However, it took myspace freaking long time to fix it, so I don't blame people for thinking it was more than one person at work. There was no replies for a month, for hundreds of emails directed at several different moderators, including the myspace owners.

Not by definition. If you belive in a God like Odin, then you are still a theist, but the story of Odin does not include the creation of man.
Man being created by God is very common for theist with belief in one single God, but it is not required.
1) The point to that argument was that the laws of the monotheist god [And most others] Hardly reflect evolution ideas. They DO essentially [The Bible says that there is a time for war in one of the excerpts]

2) Do you remember the Atheist theory that if there is no proof that something exists, it is somewhat SMARTER to say that it probably doesn't exist? Consider that

# 1 No scientific evidence of a personal law code regarding either daily behavior or even moral behavior was ever created by the human race. Therefore, creating one and saying 'this is the real deal' doesn't really make sense.

# 2 The only thing that DOES exist, is the idea that humans who are best at staying alive in the world are more likely to survive, and thus allow for the

# 3 Most Atheists either have no 'self oriented' objective to life, or the objective to 'improve human kind' or 'advance human kind' this reflects the evolutionary desire to promote the survival of your specie. It would make sense that behaviors created out of the same very desire for survival are most likely beneficial to that same goal.

#4 the BIG idea;

History has shown that most of the time people existing without external or internal pressures will be capable of living without a serious degree of problems; [Imagine a single Ape living in a rain forest completely alone [no predators or other apes] but having enough resources to survive, there will be no problems]

However, groups of humans competing against other groups of humans; [Humans were are not solo-opperating creatures; they're survival since their earliest of existence relies on their cooperation with individuals of their group; For example, everyone in the greek city state of Athens played a part, and they depended on eachother for lively-hood but they did not rely so much on OTHER groups of humans; infact they often times faced natural animal competition. ] Result in conflict, conflict that is EXPECTED because...

The groups do not benefit one another, OR; both groups understand that taking advantage of the other group would benefit them more, allow THEM to survive more efficiently, so it would make sense to them to enslave the other group; They're prosperity may tempt them to commit the same acts of enslavement against them, or they're existence creates pressures of population or competition for resources necessary for survival. An armed conflict is no different than an animal conflict, only that humans are smart enough to organize themselves into efficient killing machines; capable of manipulating their environment like no other animal can.

The result of this is simple, one group is capable of using the other group to increase their output in terms of food; the plight of the 'enslaved' or 'conquered' group is not really worth crying about; since such things allowed for other individuals to focus on things other than food production, and spend time thinking about things like 'How does the world work?' Aristotle might have been a farmer if he didn't have helots to do it for him; and you Drakim would still be a Christian or pagan, tilling to a farm; knowing nothing about the world because no one has any time to study it.

That is the reality of war, enslavement, abuse, and social structures; One group becomes more powerfull, they can grow and expand, and advance society. It's like you jumping on my back to get up on a wall, and maybe then throw down a ladder for the rest of us to climb. [Like how the triangle trade of slavery gave Europeans dominance in the world, which allowed for the study of new sciences and subsequently created an industrial revolution that liberated the slaves]

Think about it in this way, Think about all of the technologies that were created as a result of the European nations of the middle ages at war, they CONSTANTLY needed to get the best weapons and troop formations because failure to do so would result in their destruction [survival of the fittest] This resulted in a technological revolution of the age. If there was no war, why would there be any need to create better killing machines? If there was no famine or unnatural death, why create medicine?

3) You may have the impression that I am stating that Evolution is a Moral Code because it created us and therefore is like a 'god' This simply is not true, I am stating that it is impractical to think otherwise only because there exists no real practical reason to say 'Evolution is not a basis for accepting human action'

For example... Why is sex wrong?

Well, most teens don't think that anymore. Thinking that sex is wrong may have been something done by the jews to create order and population control in a society. [If you want to have sex, you are probably going to have to have a baby]

Contraception made chastity absolete for population control, Teens, influenced not by the media, not by drugs, but by evolution; rationalized a behavior that their brains instruct them to do because it allows for the survival of the human race.

4) You also have the impression this is an attempt to make Atheists look immoral. I don't believe in morality so I can't make someone look of something that I don't think exists. Morality is certainly not superior to immorality, nor is god superior to evolution; the modern western interpretation is that of people who have been institutionalized with the idea that competition over resources is unnecessary because of technology, human intelligence; and they have never experienced a conflict that put the existence of their very state and nation at risk of being destroyed; Therefore, they have no reason to believe that fighting in such a manner is acceptable because it's impratical; if this were to ever change. [Say another world war] National lively-hood would kick in because humans are now faced with the threat of destruction.

Now, you can't say "ok killing is wrong now, but soon it will be correct"

The rules of science don't bend to the situation, the situation bends to the rules of science. As such it is my belief that it is more practical to say that there is no reason why humans can't commit to an action that benefits their society if it;

1) Ends up protecting their interests in the long run
2) Possibly brings even more advances to society
3) Doesn't endanger the entire human race, particularly not your own group

Even if it results in human suffering and death, that is not a REASON why such actions cannot be taken. If you say 'well how would you feel if someone did it against you?' I tell you, I would be pissed, and I would fight for my survival like any animal would. But in a natural setting, the inferior animal either adapts, moves, or dies. If they are superior; they benefit their race by moving up in the ranks. Why SHOULD anyone stop them?

Atheists believe in this philosophy selectively; they don't really mind killing sub-human life forms for research or for the 'woman's body' But they are still filled with 'pro-life' bias on the value of human life.

5) "You have to understand that evolution isn't a predefined set of positive things and negative things. If there suddenly came demons who ate anybody who was greedy, then evolution would directly be aimed at not being greedy"

And from my knowledge of history, and by your logic, evolution must be aimed at humans trying to organize themselves into groups to improve their OVERAL condition, as well as fighting for individual rights to improve their INDIVIDUAL condition. But, these are sometimes [actually, they are often done] using violent force. [And the oppression of others]

It seems that's the way that evolution is aimed, and it seems to me that it would make sense that that is the superior mean by which humans advance in the world; seeing as it has been practiced for almost 5000 years.

I HOPE it makes more sense now, why An enslavement is just as positive as an abolition movement; because both reflect human interests to be more dominant, or to dominate.

It makes sense to me, that a moral code of atheism would be to accept the evolution-run instincts of the human race; including war, famine, genocide, and attempts at domination, but also peace, improved government management, improved technologies, and revolution/rebellion/abolition because it has successfully kept life on earth persistent due to it's reflecting the individual human interest to be 'the best'

The System has been shown to work, people will work together, and if they have the chance; they'll try and become more dominating, and those that don't try get thrown to the bottom, those that do the best get put on to.

It would make sense that Atheists dislike the 'bad things' War, Famine, death, only because it is they're desire to ESCAPE these things, because these things endanger their evolutionary survival. But as conscious human beings who understand evolution, we can look at those things and feel grateful that suffering exists to permit for further development and science. Infact, without suffering [as I argued before] There would probably be no atheism, since a perfect world would reflect the existence of a god, and remove the need for scientific study; Without our internal desire to be the dominators we would also never subsequently create the suffering, or respond to the suffering created by others.

But it would make more sense that Atheists would embrace these things as the agents of improvement, the source of what has created human dominance.

"Why does God let suffering occur in the world?" - A common Atheist question

Atheists should know the answer.

So we could conquer it, be conquered, and re conquer it.

At 2/2/08 10:23 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I HOPE it makes more sense now, why An enslavement is just as positive as an abolition movement; because both reflect human interests to be more dominant, or to dominate.

No, this is were you keep making the same mistake. You think about a non-theistic world from a theistic perspective. It's kinda hard to explain, but I'll try to show you your error by taking your logic and applying it at another example instead.

Let's say that I believe that goblins have decided that the color green is better than blue. Now, you say to me that you don't believe in goblins. Amazed, I say that you must then think all colors are equal, since you don't have any goblins to decide the best color.

What I'm missing here is that I think the rule "goblins decide the best color" applies to EVERYBODY, even those who does not believe in goblins. It never occurred to me that people might have other methods to select their favorite color than goblins.

You think that since God isn't here to put his opinion over ours, then all opinions must be equal. If I oppose slavery, then that means shit because somebody else can just say that they like slavery, and we would be deadlocked there, either overruling the other.

But the thing is, most atheist don't think opinions are worth anything. Atheist tend to be more like "So freaking what if you think that? Show me your evidence, THEN we can talk!".

It makes sense to me, that a moral code of atheism would be to accept the evolution-run instincts of the human race; including war, famine, genocide, and attempts at domination, but also peace, improved government management, improved technologies, and revolution/rebellion/abolition because it has successfully kept life on earth persistent due to it's reflecting the individual human interest to be 'the best'

You are making the theist/atheist mistake again. You assume, since God created us, then he decides what is best. So, atheist believe that evolution created us, therefore atheist must think that the ways of evolution must be best.

There is no rule that says that the creator knows best. Absolutely not. Evolution might very well get us killed in the future because it is a very primitive and slow process, as opposed to planning and designing.

Just, when you try to imagine yourself in an atheist position, don't just take the theist position and replace God with evolution. Atheist and theist aren't negative mirrors of each other, but vastly diffrent, and in some ways, the same.

The System has been shown to work, people will work together, and if they have the chance; they'll try and become more dominating, and those that don't try get thrown to the bottom, those that do the best get put on to.

But that might fail in the future, when it becomes too easy to dominate due to weapons, such as portable nukes. We shouldn't draw our way of living from a single source, because nothing is perfect.

It would make sense that Atheists dislike the 'bad things' War, Famine, death, only because it is they're desire to ESCAPE these things, because these things endanger their evolutionary survival. But as conscious human beings who understand evolution, we can look at those things and feel grateful that suffering exists to permit for further development and science. Infact, without suffering [as I argued before] There would probably be no atheism, since a perfect world would reflect the existence of a god, and remove the need for scientific study; Without our internal desire to be the dominators we would also never subsequently create the suffering, or respond to the suffering created by others.

I'm not sure. I think, in a completely perfect world, the theist wouldn't exist either, because there is no question that is unanswered. There is never any mystery to life that might be explained by a higher will.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief, it doesn't need to be a stance against the belief, that is called anti-theism, so, just as you are an atheist for blue goblins on the moon, since you had never even thought about it before now, humans in a perfect world would be atheist against God, since they hadn't even thought about the possibility.

An example could be babies. Babies have a small small world, with very few and easy needs. Desires can be reduced to such simple things as "hungry" and "bored". Babies in that way, never think about the possibility of God, because their world does not require or ask for such a being.

But it would make more sense that Atheists would embrace these things as the agents of improvement, the source of what has created human dominance.

Atheist should embrace all things that improve us, including evolution.

"Why does God let suffering occur in the world?" - A common Atheist question

Atheists should know the answer.

So we could conquer it, be conquered, and re conquer it.

Starting with the world already conquered would be the same but without suffering :p

we would be a more unsuccessful species if we acted immorally. individuals would be less successful at passing on their genes in the human populace if they act immorally

it is for our own personal benefit that we act nicely and have a brain that can evaluate situations morally

I'm a nonathiest.

At 2/1/08 12:30 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 1/30/08 04:47 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote:

At 1/30/08 12:05 PM, zoolrule wrote: Can god create a stone that he cant lift?"

'All knowing'=/='Omnipotent' Or even a phyiscal entity for that matter.

So..you don't believe god is all-powerful?

Perhaps he is not.

Consider for a second that you are the most powerful being in the universe, but you are not all powerful. Even though you are not all powerful, as there is no-one more powerful than you, there is no need to be.

If u were a sinner u wouldn't be a believer......... so when a sinner Converts to faith after doing too many sins, he'll stop sinning! cuz u know as a believer that God can forgive u for ur evil deeds which u made in the past as a none-believer IF u prove ur faith by changing ur life to the better, like giving out charity, being nice to people... etc & worshipping him by ways in ur religion (i'm not talking about a specific religion)
Cuz all religions have same BASIC concepts, making people behave better, & maintain that behavior with or without supervision, so an individual becomes a supervisor of himself & hence he develops responsibilities.
As a believer u know that having Forgiveness from God is the ONLY important thing! cuz u want to win the afterlife....... now u say, " but i think that my parents, children, friends...etc are the most important things in my life"
Well God's forgiveness doesn't come from worshipping him alone, worshipping in fact is just a tiny part of the equation, u need to be kind to the people u love & be responsible for them ...etc
So God gives u a style of life which Promotes u from the level of " free animals " to the level of " free humans "
By having faith, any problem u face will eventually be small, cuz u know if u keep ur patience & face it well, u'll be awarded by God! (nothing is for free) so u'll be paid by God

Now as for choices...............
u don't choose to be black or white, tall or short, healthy or disabled.......& this shouldn't even bother u!
for example: a man maybe rich, but has an incurable disease
on the other hand a man maybe poor but totally healthy......
so there is balance in people abilities, one smart, other is creative...& so on
For now this is God's job..................
ur job comes when u HAVE the ability to decide & choose from 2 or more options
for instance: u see a man walking in front of u in the street as his wallet drops from his pocket..
UR CHOICE NOW
either u take the money....... or give it to the man................. That's Ur Job!
If u are mentally disabled (Crazy) u won't be judged if u give it back or not cuz u CAN'T make a choice!
now u'll say " but what about people in Sudan (Africa), they don't have money nor they have health!"
yes they are starving.... & the same thing about being Crazy applies here!
Rule : If u can't make a choice, u won't be judged by God
SOOOOOOOO.... don't blame God if he made a choice for u, just act as a faithful person & stay patient,
cuz God will Reward U!
then u say " but u said there is balance between people!"
yes, between people who are judged for their acts....
Disabled, starving people........etc are all a way to test UR faith,
so what are u going to do about it??

Conclusion:
All ur choices in life fall under One Most Important Choice----> Heaven or Hell

* if u don't believe in the afterlife look how many people do....
if ur curious search the internet....... but see All religions before u decide
even if u have one now!

Thnx 4 ur time :)

At 2/2/08 01:27 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote: Consider for a second that you are the most powerful being in the universe, but you are not all powerful. Even though you are not all powerful, as there is no-one more powerful than you, there is no need to be.

Fair point.
It's just that almost every Christian/Muslim/etc. believe their god to be omnipotent, so it's hard to tell.

Religious people often seem to think you can infer their specific beliefs easily and it's wrong to assume them in arguments, when they're the ones diverging from established doctrine.

I think the best, purest argument I can think of is, it is quite obvious the only reason anyone is in their specific religion is because of culture, and if there must be some supernatural explanation for everything, there's no need to completely involve yourself in one specific religion; it's far more sensible to take a completely personal and individual view on the matter. Read whatever philosophy, religion, political theory, moral stance, scientific knowledge you like, and try and almalgamate it all into whatever non=specific view of the universe wourks best for you.

And it would completely destroy any issue I have with religion. Some people do exactly that, and think I have a major issue with it. But of course not. I think that's a completely sensible thing to do, I just think you might be deluding yourself if you grant holy books any particular prestige, and I think you're particularly deluding yourself if you grant one over all the others.

There's definitely a sensible medium. But I still can't buy the 'intelligent designer' part.

"So freaking what if you think that? Show me your evidence, THEN we can talk!".

1) I've already shown some historical examples of how atrocities allowed for the advancement of man kind. [And it is hardly worth mentioning the fact that advances of man kind lead to more atrocities, but if you request I shall contribute]

"Then all opinions must be equal."

2) Which is why I stated that Atrocities are equal to altruisms;

"You are making the theist/atheist mistake again. You assume, since God created us, then he decides what is best. So, atheist believe that evolution created us, therefore atheist must think that the ways of evolution must be best."

3) It's kept life alive for almost 1 billion years [Earliest life began there I think]

"But that might fail in the future, when it becomes too easy to dominate due to weapons, such as portable nukes. We shouldn't draw our way of living from a single source, because nothing is perfect."

4) Where is YOUR 1 billion years of organic success? Humans might have nukes, but using them doesn't benefit them if they know consciously; [Yes, we are thinking creatures]

1) Ends up protecting their interests in the long run
2) Possibly brings even more advances to society
3) Doesn't endanger the entire human race, particularly not your own group

Humans can do damage to themselves, ANIMALS can do damage to themselves, if they overeat; they fight, kill each other, and starve, then they repopulate. Evolution is as versatile as morality; you can't POSSIBLY call it unchanging.

[Like I said, I view true atheism as a society that accepts atrocities as a natural occurrence between a period of growth and a period of regrowth]

Now... if you want to argue why aiming for a global peace is fruitless / a better route then accepting evolutionary urges, ask yourself why it is so difficult for a adolescent male to stop masturbating for more than 1 week.

1) Humans are naturally distrusting; we're not built for peace because we are not built of a collective consciousness
2) Humans are naturally desirous of domination, if they opportunity presents itself, a human cannot be relied on to resist the urge because they are more concerned about the 'suffering they could inflict on mankind' The only time this doesn't happen is if the rewards are less than the cost or punishment if it fails. [Friendship and 'love' count as reasons to not kill or betray someone due to the same principal; but loyalty does not keep a person from doing things that they believe are worth it [lying behind their back for instance] There is no sacred principal, it is all mental calculation;

Outside Factors + Internal analysis = Always Yeilds = Best possible 'self oriented' results

I think it might be easier for you to give me an example of your 'ideal mentality / organization' of society.

Now, obviously there is a step between what one has 'now' and what one has 'then'

So take into consideration what needs to be done to get to that ideal society. Then I'll try and draw a connection between it and evolution.

At 2/2/08 08:51 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: "So freaking what if you think that? Show me your evidence, THEN we can talk!".

1) I've already shown some historical examples of how atrocities allowed for the advancement of man kind. [And it is hardly worth mentioning the fact that advances of man kind lead to more atrocities, but if you request I shall contribute]

I was mainly talking about the common atheist today. If you are going to drag out the old worst examples in history, religions people don't come out pretty well either.

"Then all opinions must be equal."

2) Which is why I stated that Atrocities are equal to altruisms;

I was saying that being an atheist does NOT make you think "all opinions must be equal."

"You are making the theist/atheist mistake again. You assume, since God created us, then he decides what is best. So, atheist believe that evolution created us, therefore atheist must think that the ways of evolution must be best."

3) It's kept life alive for almost 1 billion years [Earliest life began there I think]

So what?
lol, are you saying that atheists have to use evolution as a basis for morality because it worked so well in the past? I'm telling you, stop trying to shape atheism into something you can criticize. It doesn't work that way. If it did, I could start criticizing agnostics because they support child porn.

Atheism doesn't include all the stuff you attribute to it. It simply doesn't. Atheism and evolutionism is common yes, but there is no real link. There simply is no way around this.

What you raise is very good points, but it's simply not relevant to atheism. You should write a post were you bring these points against evolutionists, so that people can properly address these points.

I know it's common to talk about atheism as if it was a full word view (I'm guilty of this myself), but it simply isn't so. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God(s), just as vegetarianism is when you don't eat meat. Neither of them talks about morality or the afterlife, and it makes equal not sense to pretend that they do.

Instead, there are other terms for these groups, such as Nihilism. They are those who believe that nothing hold value and morals are purely human inventions and all that.

Then there is materialism, which holds that there is no such thing as the supernatural.

Lastly there is evolution-ism, which is the belief in evolution.

If you have criticism against any of these stances, then please do tell them, as many of us would enjoy reading and replying, but don't lump it all together and call it atheism.

"But that might fail in the future, when it becomes too easy to dominate due to weapons, such as portable nukes. We shouldn't draw our way of living from a single source, because nothing is perfect."

4) Where is YOUR 1 billion years of organic success? Humans might have nukes, but using them doesn't benefit them if they know consciously; [Yes, we are thinking creatures]

But we are not a collective will. The thing that perhaps is the key to our success may one day be our doom. Humans aren't bound and restricted, thus they will go as far as to kill each other, but being unbound, having "free will" if you want, generally helps us to solve problems and be durable as a species. So despite it appearing to work against us at times, I think it generally helps a lot more.

But once individuals posses the power to ruin the entire species with their unrestricted ways, then things might turn sour. In a caveman era, this would not be a problem because at the very worst, the individual might kill somebody else with his club. With nukes, this is no longer the case.

Humans can do damage to themselves, ANIMALS can do damage to themselves, if they overeat; they fight, kill each other, and starve, then they repopulate. Evolution is as versatile as morality; you can't POSSIBLY call it unchanging.

Yes, but what if every single individual in a species possessed the means to end the race? Obviously, you would NOT want that evolutionary morality were every individual goes his own path and tries his own ways. All it would need is one fluke, and it's all over.

[Like I said, I view true atheism as a society that accepts atrocities as a natural occurrence between a period of growth and a period of regrowth]

Atheism needs to be like, split into two diffrent words. One for the normal atheism that only means lack of belief in God(s), and one for the whole package that becomes more popular to use today (what you call true atheism).

Now... if you want to argue why aiming for a global peace is fruitless / a better route then accepting evolutionary urges, ask yourself why it is so difficult for a adolescent male to stop masturbating for more than 1 week.

Natural urges of course, but we have lots of natural urges we don't honor. If you want an object that another person possesses, what keeps you from taking it? What overrules your urge to steal the object?

1) Humans are naturally distrusting; we're not built for peace because we are not built of a collective consciousness

Indeed we are not. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for peace. I think humans are meant for striving, but can't actually live in a perfect world once we create it. So we have to continue striving, as it's the optimal existence for us, and space is pretty big, so we won't run out of things to strive for.

2) Humans are naturally desirous of domination, if they opportunity presents itself, a human cannot be relied on to resist the urge because they are more concerned about the 'suffering they could inflict on mankind' The only time this doesn't happen is if the rewards are less than the cost or punishment if it fails. [Friendship and 'love' count as reasons to not kill or betray someone due to the same principal; but loyalty does not keep a person from doing things that they believe are worth it [lying behind their back for instance] There is no sacred principal, it is all mental calculation;

You should read about Game Theory. It exactly what you talk about, but for some strange reasons, the good guys wins. It's very interesting.

I think it might be easier for you to give me an example of your 'ideal mentality / organization' of society.

I actually think that NOT having an overlord of mentalities is the optimal setting. It makes us more durable and stronger as a species.

You can compare it to stone and water. While a stone is a lot more solid and stronger, it can shatter if hit hard enough at the right point. Water however can never be destroyed because of it's non-solid nature.

If the human race was one big collective will with one big collective goal, then I think extinction could come easily if the situation simply struck hard at humanity at the wrong point.

Now, however, we all disagree on everything. We aren't one big unified unit, and therefore have no weak point. But we still get thing done somehow, not making this chaos completely unbearable.

Thus, everything, from Christianity to Communism to vegetarianism to atheism to Islam (etc etc) is part of the grand picture we humans make up. By doing everything in every possible way, we ensure that we are ready to face any challenge there is.

You might ask why exactly I would be trying to change people's mind about stuff here if everybody is "right"? It's simple. I'm also part of the system, and should work for my own position like everybody else.

Now, obviously there is a step between what one has 'now' and what one has 'then'

So take into consideration what needs to be done to get to that ideal society. Then I'll try and draw a connection between it and evolution.

Well, as above. I can only say that the ideal society is "everything in every possible way".

At 2/1/08 01:48 PM, Tjalve wrote: No, we aren't a cult or religionen. But all atheists refuse to connect themselves to a religionen.

Are you crazy? I have an atheist friend who goes to church every Sunday, a Unitarian church. There are whole religions that are atheist. To pretend that "atheist" is a synonym with "areligious" is only fooling yourself.

Therefore we have something in common. We share the same belief.

Jew, Muslim and Christians all believe in one god, supposedly the same god. All atheist share one idea, doesn't make them all the same.

And that's why I can speak of myself and all other atheists as a "race" if you like. In the same way I do about myself and all other, caucasian people (I'm caucasian).

You seem to be assuming that all Atheists are the same. There are still different kinds Atheists, just like there are different kinds of Theists.

It's exactly the same way religious people speak about themselves and other members of their religion. I don't see the problem.

It is absolutely not. For someone to speak of people in their religion, that is different. When you a speaking about people in your religion, you have some idea what they believe and such. That's one thing. But to speak about Atheists, that's no easier than speaking about Theists.

Atheism is not a religion, wake up dude.