The collapse of atheism - Page 3

Astreja · 07-31-2007, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melchizedek

Haha,exactly my point Astreja,it is only wrong because the community says so,not because the Gods do,and as such no man has the right to say then that rape is morally wrong.

What makes the opinion of a god any less subjective than the opinion of a mortal?

Quote:

And this problem will stay with you all until divine authority rules,and your judges rule with it,and your citizens follow it

I am of the opinion that "divine authority" will not rule this planet at any time in the foreseeable future. If ever.

Quote:

...Be careful that what you do does not help to cause you a disease,or an injury,or to be victimized or thrown in jail,because there are steps in life to be followed, disciplines which must be adhered to, everything in moderation,including those things which may harm your psyche

Simple common sense, in my opinion. I do take care of myself, and encourage family, friends and neighbours to do likewise.

I do find the statement "...which must be adhered to" (emphasis mine) to be just as problematic as the problem of where morality originates. What is this 'must' whereof you speak?

Quote:

However,it is still too early for you to make a decision on what happens after life, live a little, grow old and see how you feel later,as you approach your death

I turn fifty next week, Mel. I have already lived *more* than a little. My family tends to be long-lived; but, to quote a line from one of my favourite novels, "I am not certain of drawing my next breath." I prefer to seek my happiness and my meaning in the present moment, as I do not expect my sense of 'me' to survive the eventual death of my brain.

Quote:

Humanity" does not exist except as a concept. It's a superset of smaller groups such as one's own family. There is nothing magical about "humanity".

Yet most of humanity especially children have a fixation with magic,with other worlds,with fairies and elfs and magical beings,with films and books involving magic - strange for such an intelligent creature dont you think ?

I intended 'magic' as a metaphor here. And yes, we humans do like our fantasy worlds and storybooks. Perhaps I should have phrased my statement "There is nothing particularly special about humanity."

Quote:

Then if one of your family, god forbid, are slaughtered by a self centered criminal after their riches, and who then takes off and is never caught, consider it normal, and do not complain, since to kill, and strive, and take amongst animals is normal

No, murder is not normal in the animal community. AFAIK, numerous species have their own versions of morality. Offenders are killed or kicked out of the tribe, which lessens their survival chances and the chance that they will live to reproduce.

And I, as a sentient being alive in a human community, will continue to complain if I think it necessary to do so. Even if I do my complaining from an entirely subjective point of view, I consider it valid.

Mac · 07-31-2007, 07:24 AM

[quote=Melchizedek;14940
Christ is a greek word which means "the annointed" It is a mistake for christians to believe that only Jesus could be the christ,that only he could be annointed with the holy spirit and given the power to heal,perform miracles,that would be ridiculous since his message was that we are all the christ,that is to say we are all the christic principle which exists in the universe,Jesus was christ in the same way as we all may become the christ,we may all become as pure and unsullied as he,as selfless and caring,as bold and defiant against established religions which try to mislead the innocent,[/QUOTE]

Mel, you wouldn't happen to be Mormon would you? The name, your belief that we can all become gods...right from the Mormon playbook. As an agnostic I can say that I am unsure about Christianity, but I can definetly say that Mormonism is a sham thrust upon the ignorant, a scam of huge preportions.

Tomasz · 07-31-2007, 09:38 AM

By the sales of The God Delusion it's not

Always when faith is seen as something that's bad atheism seems to flourish

SDSJap · 07-31-2007, 09:48 AM

Animal parents die for their young all the time, havent you heard of house cats standing up to wolves, giving their kittens enough time to flee or hide? or a mother bear staring down a male bear to protect her cubs? this whole presumption suffers from lack or logic.

Evolutionary this makes perfect sense. A species who does not care about its young will not defend them when they are defenseless and the young will die in large numbers. requiring that the parent produce huge ammounts of children(think fish or frogs)species who produce few children MUST protect their biologicall investment from predators or the species will slowly dwindle even from huge numbers to nothing.

Melchizedek · 07-31-2007, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harleylove

I would die for my children in a heartbeat, wouldn't even have to think twice about it. I understand what you are saying but I still disagree. I would die for my children because I want them to live, I want them to experience life, I want them to stay on this wonderful planet and have a chance to accomplish their dreams. Can you understand where I am coming from?

I do understand Harley,yet you admit you are selfless without knowing. First of all,that you would die in a heartbeat for your child shows you are selfless,because if you were truly selfish your own mortality would be the first thing on your mind,your own self preservation would be first priority,as it is with all other creatures .

Remember,the argument here from atheist philosophers is that we are highly intelligent animals,the most intelligent,and that this intelligence has meant we developed complicated feelings and thoughts through interaction with others in society etc,but that despite this intelligence we are unquestionably selfish! that whatever we do has a selfish motive,that all things including love have a selfish purpose

But If you had two children say,one at 6 and the other at 8, and tragically one of them were going to die,and you could prevent it by offering your own life,you would allow it to die if you were only selfish ! ,because where is the sense in leaving one child without a parent and dying yourself into the bargain when you could live and just have another child ? No sense at all if what atheist philosophers suggest were true,none whatsoever.

If you are the most intelligent creature on the planet,and all other creatures that are less intelligent have the intelligence to allow their offspring to die when they have to and move on without any worries,then why cant you ?

I dont deny that some animal parents may put themselves in danger for their offspring,but then that is an example of kin altruism,which is a selfish motive,and does not prove anything in the argument against selflessness .

Because all other animals except humans are fundamentally selfish,if a mother bear is with its young,and a man shoots at them with a gun,it may get angry,but it has learned that a gun is more powerful than itself,so it will run and hope that its young catch up .Creatures may take on other predators bigger than themselves,but when they know without doubt they will die,they will not,because they are inteligent and know that they can reproduce again at a later time

There is a limit to what other animals will do to protect their young,and some other animals which will stand up to predators do so for selfish reasons,because they must protect their biological investment,because they do not reproduce as other creatures like rats for example,so losing their offspring means more to those creatures which produce less young.

To say that because some creatures will endanger their own lives for their young is an argument against selflessness is preposterous

When other creatures like wildebeast move from one region to the next,as they do every year,in search of new grass to eat and water,they will leave any young they have behind in a second if that offspring has developed a weakness,an illness,and it cannot keep up. All creatures are like this Harley,they will leave the weakest behind, as darwin said,it is the survival of the fittest,all creatures will do this-except humans,or at least most humans

Atheist philosophers argue that nature has intelligence,and that it is due to our remarkable intelligence that we are capable of amazing things,so they all agree we are highly intelligent. Yet, with your higher intelligence you should then understand that to allow the child to die and go on to have another one would be of greater benifit,because that way you get to live, and you get to have another child who will also live,and go on to live in the world,and experience its dreams,as you say

Quote:

Mostly though, if one of my children died and I could have stopped it I may as well die myself because I would never be able to live with myself.

Haha, My point is proven then. Because if you were truly selfish why would you want to die ? That is not logical,if you were truly made up of only selfish genes then you would not want to die,but live,because your animal instinct would be telling you to survive

Quote:

What if one of our children would rather die themselves than see one of us die. Would we even take that into consideration, I know I wouldn't, I would do it anyway regardless of how they felt, assuming they would get over it

In fact its very likely that a child may request that they die over their parent,because we are born with selfishness,in as much as we have inherited some of the genes from our animal past,yet a child may request this because we are also born with selfless genes,which makes us more than other animals,it makes us humans

SDSJap · 07-31-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melchizedek

Because all other animals except humans are fundamentally selfish,if a mother bear is with its young,and a man shoots at them with a gun,it may get angry,but it has learned that a gun is more powerful than itself,so it will run and hope that its young catch up .Creatures may take on other predators bigger than themselves,but when they know without doubt they will die,they will not,because they are inteligent and know that they can reproduce again at a later time

FAIL

do you think about anything you post or do you just talk out of your ass all day to keep the pressure from all that hot air reaching critical levels?

Melchizedek · 07-31-2007, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac

Mel, you wouldn't happen to be Mormon would you? The name, your belief that we can all become gods...right from the Mormon playbook.

Thankfully not Mac,no im not a mormon, I have a dislike for these groups of christians due to the amount of tosh they speak . I am not religious,I have no religion

Quote:

I can definetly say that Mormonism is a sham thrust upon the ignorant, a scam of huge preportions.

Agreed

Melchizedek · 07-31-2007, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDSJap

species who produce few children MUST protect their biologicall investment from predators or the species will slowly dwindle even from huge numbers to nothing.

wildebeast have one or two offspring a year,same as many other creatures,and like them will leave those young in a second to preserve their own life,of course they might try to protect their young,but its a fact that they think of self preservation first,and the fact that you will not return back to this forum with any evidence to show the contrary proves I am right

Quote:

do you just talk out of your ass all day

Hilarious,if you disagree with what someone says try and show why they are wrong instead of falling back on insults,have I insulted you ? No,because I dont have any need to,I merely expressed my point of view,and gave evidence to support what I say,if what I say annoys you so much then dont read about it,hahahahaha

duck · 07-31-2007, 01:40 PM

^^^^^That sounds like a heck of a good idea.

SDSJap · 07-31-2007, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melchizedek

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDSJap

species who produce few children MUST protect their biologicall investment from predators or the species will slowly dwindle even from huge numbers to nothing.

wildebeast have one or two offspring a year,same as many other creatures,and like them will leave those young in a second to preserve their own life,of course they might try to protect their young,but its a fact that they think of self preservation first,and the fact that you will not return back to this forum with any evidence to show the contrary proves I am right

Quote:

Nesting territories often provide areas of protection such as dens, burrows, etc. where the young may hide after birth. Because young wildebeests are protected from predation largely through the herd effect, males' territories do not serve nesting purposes. In the wildebeest social system, predation of the young by hyenas is a necessary concern, and thus must be addressed by the wildebeest population. For example, each year approximately three quarters of calves may be lost to predation, mostly the hyena (McFarland, 1982). Hyenas strive to locate the most vulnerable potential prey and thus seek the disease, injured, or incapacitated calves (Estes, 1979). Less frequently the wild dog and the cheetah may prey upon wildebeest calves. In the wildebeest system of protection for the young, several tactics are employed: (a) the young keep a safe distance from predators and stay within a large group, (b) they may attempt to outrun a predator if singled out, and (c) mothers may attempt to defend their young against an aggressive predator (Estes, 1979). Although (b) may seem impossible for a newborn calf, studies have shown that calves can run along side their mothers within a few minutes after being born (McFarland, 1982). Despite this ability, the best protection tactic is (a) the herd effect as a young wildebeests chance of being picked off are tremendously reduced when it is surrounded by a large aggregation of other wildebeests (Estes, 1979). As members of a large herd, the young are often shielded by their mothers, who place themselves between the predator and their offspring. Additionally, other wildebeests in the herd attempt to screen the mother and her offspring from the predator's eye (Estes, 1979). Thus, because the herd effect is the wildebeests' best tactic to avoid predation of offspring, a male need not defend his territory for purposes of defending newly born wildebeest calves. On a defended territory away from the masses of the herd, a young wildebeest would become easy prey for hyenas and wild dogs among others.

Source

but even then 1-2 young a year is a rather high number compared with primates. Also wildebeast survival adaptation is the herd, in primates it is a social group. not only strength in numbers but strength in help.

also how do you explain the care taken by animals such as the male penguin? resisting hunger for 4months, bearing the brunt of polar blizards etc. thats pretty amazing IMO for such selfish animals