|
On September 19 2010 17:53 blitzkrieger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 17:45 TOloseGT wrote:On September 19 2010 17:42 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:37 hifriend wrote:On September 19 2010 17:34 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:26 TOloseGT wrote:On September 19 2010 17:23 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:10 Blix wrote:On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote:
I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists? Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction. Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS? Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better. Evolution Goals: 1: Self Preserve 2: Reproduce (once reproduce 1 is null). If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution. "Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist. Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed. I get my morals from my atheist parents, who were taught to them from my atheist grandparents, who were taught to them from my atheist great-grandparents and so on back to the ages of Confucius. We cherish our loved ones and our neighbors because we have compassion and understanding. We don't murder because we have empathy Need I go on? You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it. When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
Ehm...ok. and?
|
On September 19 2010 17:54 Shatter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 17:39 cursor wrote:
I, for one, can't believe that people still actually seriously cling to these arcane religions. It really amazes me. You REALLY gotta have the blinders on to think that the world written about in the Bible is the world we actually live in.
These "Christian" type people seriously overestimate their importance and don't realize they are just a tiny whisper in time. Like the hundreds of silly religions that preceded them. In 5000 years Christians will be seen as we see Egyptian religion now. Or Roman gods, or ancient Greek gods. Just a bunch of mystical rigmarole slapped together to justify power systems. I'm not religious at all but I hate it when people think they are on some higher plane of intelligence because they have gotten past the "god belief" or whatever. You are not better than "these "Christian" type people."
It's actually incredibly annoying.
|
After reading the whole thread so far, i have learned one thing. Blitzkreiger is a joke. I think everyone will agree with me. The reason you believe in religion is because you have morals in the first place. Morlas dont come from religion. Religion comes from morals.
|
On September 19 2010 17:48 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 17:42 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:37 hifriend wrote:On September 19 2010 17:34 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:26 TOloseGT wrote:On September 19 2010 17:23 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:10 Blix wrote:On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote:
I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists? Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction. Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS? Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better. Evolution Goals: 1: Self Preserve 2: Reproduce (once reproduce 1 is null). If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution. "Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist. Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed. Are you to tell me that without religion or god, you would not have empathy for fellow human beings? That you would not like others to do to you as you to them? Religion -> Human morality? REDONKULOUS PROPOSITION.
I would feel much less and any amount that I did feel would be pre-determined by genetics/biology/etc to follow the social contract which human beings benefit from because I benefit, not because I am good.
God -> Morality
ugh... so many posts... good thing I drank so much coffee...
|
On September 19 2010 17:53 blitzkrieger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 17:45 TOloseGT wrote:On September 19 2010 17:42 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:37 hifriend wrote:On September 19 2010 17:34 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:26 TOloseGT wrote:On September 19 2010 17:23 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:10 Blix wrote:On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote:
I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists? Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction. Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS? Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better. Evolution Goals: 1: Self Preserve 2: Reproduce (once reproduce 1 is null). If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution. "Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist. Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed. I get my morals from my atheist parents, who were taught to them from my atheist grandparents, who were taught to them from my atheist great-grandparents and so on back to the ages of Confucius. We cherish our loved ones and our neighbors because we have compassion and understanding. We don't murder because we have empathy Need I go on? You take care of your community and family because they benefit you. Think of the world around you, the food you eat, the clothes you wear. How much of it did you make? Are you capable of fully taking care of all your needs? No. You need other humans to help you each do a part in order to receive a greater benefit. You need farmers for food. Other to make clothes. Some to make computers so you can go on the internet. If this benefit did not exist or was less than the reward you would not do it. When you were a baby you would have died if your parents left you. In fact it takes almost 20 years for most children to be ready to live on their own. From birth you were extremely dependent on others. In turn you will take care of your children because you are paying the debt. The entirety of human society exists because it is beneficial to humans. Even acts such as self sacrifice are really to benefit the species. Google the social contract or watch any episode of House MD.
WTF does this have to do with your previous question? Of course it benefits me. If they were to leave me as a baby I would be dead. Why would some animals take care of their children? It's the same basic instinct we've evolved from. In order to survive, we have to take care of our own.
This doesn't mean we lack morality. We have the capacity to love, and it's been a blessing and a curse.
Now you're just spouting random information. Scared of a little argument?
|
Who is more moral?
The man who helps his struggling neighbour because he believes that is what god wishes of him.
Or
The man who helps his struggling neighbour because he feels empathy for a fellow human being.
|
On September 19 2010 17:42 blitzkrieger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 17:37 hifriend wrote:On September 19 2010 17:34 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:26 TOloseGT wrote:On September 19 2010 17:23 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:10 Blix wrote:On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote:
I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists? Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction. Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS? Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better. Evolution Goals: 1: Self Preserve 2: Reproduce (once reproduce 1 is null). If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution. "Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist. Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed.
I'm not sure that's something I could easily explain to you if you can't grasp it on your own, but I'll give it a shot.
First of all compassion is something very real and while it sure as hell doesn't show in all aspects of our world I do believe it exists. Then there's tribalism in various forms (religion, patriotism, and even family) that in a way hinders true compassion for our species. If you look at the origins of our species, many things indicate that even at the very beginning there was a form of compassion between members within different tribes. Some studies have found evidence that humans born with large deficits have lived relatively long lives in prehistoric times, which is staggering because it wouldn't be possible unless parents and other members of the same tribe gave a large bit of attention and care to those individuals.
If we fast-forward a couple of thousand years, tribalism has in a way extended and a lot of people are suddenly compassionate toward members of different sort of groups such as citizens of a nation, religious groups etcetera. In my mind the next step seems very obvious in that with time, people will be able to be compassionate toward our species as a whole.
There are even studies about compassion in monkeys, check this out.
+ Show Spoiler +Imagine an experiment where you have some monkeys in a cage. There are two chains. Chain A will provide a large quantity of food for the monkeys. Chain B will provide a small quantity of food. Next the experimenters set it up so that pulling chain A will also give an electric shock to another monkey in another cage. The monkeys can see each other. And in particular the monkeys sees the pain of the shocked monkey. It is easy formulate the conclusion, even for a monkey, that pulling on the chain that gives the large food reward will result in pain for another monkey.
Now the question is whether the monkeys will continue to pull on the chain A to get the large food reward or will the monkeys be sensitive to the other monkey's pain. What is your guess?
The result as published in a paper by Stephenie Preston of University of California at Berkeley and Frans de Waal of Emory University showed that the monkeys no longer pulled on chain A which administers the shock. Two-thirds of the monkey will only pull on chain B which does not administer any shock. And the remaining third will not pull on any chain for as long as 5 days. There was one monkey that refused to pull on either chain for as long as 12 days. Quoting from the paper: "These monkeys were literally starving themselves to prevent the shock to the conspecific." This indicates that monkeys exhibit empathy, and some can say compassion, and other say altruism. Whatever term you call it, it is clear that even in primate monkeys, an individual is able to relate to the pain of another individual and will make decisions that will reduce the other's pain.
|
I am in no way saying that the world suddenly would turn peaceful when everyone would be an atheist, but I do believe that it would not be worse than it is now, I think it could be even better.
I think it would too, but I think your mistaking cause with effect.
The world will not be better when Religion stops existing. Religion will stop existing once the world gets better.
History has proven this to be a trend. Secularism and Social prosperity have coincided with each other with pinpoint accuracy in the Eastern and Western world.
I would feel much less and any amount that I did feel would be pre-determined by genetics/biology/etc to follow the social contract which human beings benefit from because I benefit, not because I am good.
You still haven't got it. Atheists do not worship encoded data, statistical trends, etc, any more then Gamaliel worshiped the sun. Why would I be predetermined by trends? Good is a relative value that exists between humans. So yes, you are "good".
|
On September 19 2010 17:39 Sad[Panda] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 17:34 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:26 TOloseGT wrote:On September 19 2010 17:23 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:10 Blix wrote:On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote:
I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists? Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction. Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS? Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better. Evolution Goals: 1: Self Preserve 2: Reproduce (once reproduce 1 is null). than how are you going to use evolution as a rebuttal to this when you used evolution to coincide with your beliefs for the dolphins. Clearly something doesn't make sense here.
I am showing you that I understand Evolution in the most basic sense (as in no degree). I have books written by Steven Hawkings about the Universe and find very much interest in space, time, matter, etc.
For most things I can give you both an atheist/humanist answer and a Christian/religious answer. People think most Christians/religious people are idiots who don't understand anything.
|
On September 19 2010 17:58 hifriend wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 17:42 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:37 hifriend wrote:On September 19 2010 17:34 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:26 TOloseGT wrote:On September 19 2010 17:23 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:10 Blix wrote:On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote:
I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists? Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction. Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS? Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better. Evolution Goals: 1: Self Preserve 2: Reproduce (once reproduce 1 is null). If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution. "Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist. Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed. I'm not sure that's something I could easily explain to you if you can't grasp it on your own, but I'll give it a shot. First of all compassion is something very real and while it sure as hell doesn't show in all aspects of our world I do believe it exists. Then there's tribalism in various forms (religion, patriotism, and even family) that in a way hinders true compassion for our species. If you look at the origins of our species, many things indicate that even at the very beginning there was a form of compassion between members within different tribes. Some studies have found evidence that humans born with large deficits have lived relatively long lives in prehistoric times, which is staggering because it wouldn't be possible unless parents and other members of the same tribe gave a large bit of attention and care to those individuals. If we fast-forward a couple of thousand years, tribalism has in a way extended and a lot of people are suddenly compassionate toward members of different sort of groups such as citizens of a nation, religious groups etcetera. In my mind the next step seems very obvious in that with time, people will be able to be compassionate toward our species as a whole. There are even studies about compassion in monkeys, check this out. + Show Spoiler +Imagine an experiment where you have some monkeys in a cage. There are two chains. Chain A will provide a large quantity of food for the monkeys. Chain B will provide a small quantity of food. Next the experimenters set it up so that pulling chain A will also give an electric shock to another monkey in another cage. The monkeys can see each other. And in particular the monkeys sees the pain of the shocked monkey. It is easy formulate the conclusion, even for a monkey, that pulling on the chain that gives the large food reward will result in pain for another monkey.
Now the question is whether the monkeys will continue to pull on the chain A to get the large food reward or will the monkeys be sensitive to the other monkey's pain. What is your guess?
The result as published in a paper by Stephenie Preston of University of California at Berkeley and Frans de Waal of Emory University showed that the monkeys no longer pulled on chain A which administers the shock. Two-thirds of the monkey will only pull on chain B which does not administer any shock. And the remaining third will not pull on any chain for as long as 5 days. There was one monkey that refused to pull on either chain for as long as 12 days. Quoting from the paper: "These monkeys were literally starving themselves to prevent the shock to the conspecific." This indicates that monkeys exhibit empathy, and some can say compassion, and other say altruism. Whatever term you call it, it is clear that even in primate monkeys, an individual is able to relate to the pain of another individual and will make decisions that will reduce the other's pain. I find this infinitely more amazing than anything I read in the bible (yeah I read it.)
Haha, I love when people compare monkeys to human beings as if they're anywhere near as intellectually and culturally developed as we are. Absolutely fantastic.
|
On September 19 2010 17:56 blitzkrieger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 17:48 ShadeR wrote:On September 19 2010 17:42 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:37 hifriend wrote:On September 19 2010 17:34 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:26 TOloseGT wrote:On September 19 2010 17:23 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:10 Blix wrote:On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote:
I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists? Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction. Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS? Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better. Evolution Goals: 1: Self Preserve 2: Reproduce (once reproduce 1 is null). If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution. "Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist. Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed. Are you to tell me that without religion or god, you would not have empathy for fellow human beings? That you would not like others to do to you as you to them? Religion -> Human morality? REDONKULOUS PROPOSITION. I would feel much less and any amount that I did feel would be pre-determined by genetics/biology/etc to follow the social contract which human beings benefit from because I benefit, not because I am good. God -> Morality ugh... so many posts... good thing I drank so much coffee...
Um, are you saying, based off that conditional up there, that If NOT God, then NOT morality?
If you are, then you just made an error in logic. Sorry, your entire belief system is rubbish.
|
United States458 Posts
On September 19 2010 17:51 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 17:41 Sad[Panda] wrote:On September 19 2010 17:39 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On September 19 2010 17:15 aimaimaim wrote:On September 19 2010 16:45 blitzkrieger wrote:
If Hitler used the Church for anything it was just that, to use them. I'm pretty sure Japanese aren't a master race according to Hitler (or Italians for that matter) yet he enlisted their aid to accomplish his own goals. If Hitler had won I am sure he would have disposed of not only the Church but also Japan when he saw fit.
I mean even if you believe the Catholic Church helped Hitler I don't think anyone believes that Christian values and Nazism have any real similarities. And its in the Christian religion that the Church (organization) can and will become corrupt, it was said be Jesus too.
If you take away religion you are just left with natural selection. And people will abuse that to say who is "fit" or not and be even more selfish. I mean WW2 already had that. Life is a FFA where every action is to gain and everyone are really enemies. There is no justification for anything except to further oneself. Things like abortion are already accepted by many and soon we will have designer babies because "its not a life". They already do selective abortion in China for women which is a huge problem, I read there will be 120million bachelors in China in a few years because they aborted so many female babies, wish I had the source...
I think atheism is the most dangerous thing out there because it removes all restraints and takes away any morals and inserts nothing. Human beings are selfish and evil and taking off the restraints will unleash the monster. You can justify anything with atheism as long as if further's your own goals. Atheists are only accountable to themselves and can easily change any moral or value. We have already seen it with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao among others. Human beings become expendable and their is no value to life (look at abortion). People are already selfish and apathetic but the rise in militant atheism is going to make it even worse.
Most people believe this even though the internet, and gaming are filled with young liberals/atheists for the most part so I'll get like 50 flames for this but I don't care. You can criticize me and the Pope all you want but I should be able to criticize atheism just as well.
wtf are you talking about?? morals? you look for morals in religion? tell me 1 concrete event where atheism is bad and ill give you 10 concrete events why organized religion is bad .. fuck the pope .. tell me, why do christians all over the world needs a pope? *cough* *cough* The Pope is the leader of the catholic faith, thank you very much. He has nothing to do with Christianity. Catholicism is a type of Christianity so he does but its not to the whole Christian faith Catholicism predates christianity, so you should go back to school.
Maybe you should go back to school, Catholicism is indeed a branch of Christianity...
aswell as Luthern, Methodist, Baptist, Angelican, etc.
|
On September 19 2010 17:51 kammeyer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 17:48 Half wrote:
Negative, University education in theology. It's not an ethnic cleansing because it goes no where near the same degree of what Hitler did. You can try to twist it how you please, it's no where near the same. It's a boring argument, Half. It really is, can you try something else to compare Hitler to the Bible? because you're far off that it's putting me to sleep at 3:46am.
So your argument for why it isn't Ethnic cleansing is that they didn't kill as many people. I don't know what to say to that. So if I killed every single Black person in detroit, it wouldn't be an ethnic cleansing because it was just detroit? What the fuck is wrong with you. You're clearly unaware of what ethnic cleansing is. You're comparing killing every black person in Detroit to killing off nearly an entire ethnicity in Israel? Are you retarded?
You're saying killing every black person in Detroit wouldn't fit the definition of ethnic cleansing?
|
On September 19 2010 17:59 blitzkrieger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 17:39 Sad[Panda] wrote:On September 19 2010 17:34 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:26 TOloseGT wrote:On September 19 2010 17:23 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:10 Blix wrote:On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote:
I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists? Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction. Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS? Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better. Evolution Goals: 1: Self Preserve 2: Reproduce (once reproduce 1 is null). than how are you going to use evolution as a rebuttal to this when you used evolution to coincide with your beliefs for the dolphins. Clearly something doesn't make sense here. I am showing you that I understand Evolution in the most basic sense (as in no degree). I have books written by Steven Hawkings about the Universe and find very much interest in space, time, matter, etc. For most things I can give you both an atheist/humanist answer and a Christian/religious answer. People think most Christians/religious people are idiots who don't understand anything.
You're not making a good job of convincing us otherwise.
|
On September 19 2010 17:58 ShadeR wrote:
Who is more moral?
The man who helps his struggling neighbour because he believes that is what god wishes of him.
Or
The man who helps his struggling neighbour because he feels empathy for a fellow human being.
I think that is a great point.
Or, let alone, the one who acts out of Fear- which would obviously be even worse.
|
On September 19 2010 17:56 Nutype wrote:
After reading the whole thread so far, i have learned one thing. Blitzkreiger is a joke. I think everyone will agree with me. The reason you believe in religion is because you have morals in the first place. Morlas dont come from religion. Religion comes from morals.
After reading the whole thread so far, i have learned one thing. Nutype is a joke. I think everyone will agree with me. The reason you believe in atheism is because ???. Morals dont come from religion. Morals come from God.
Also MY LIFE FOR AUIR!
|
On September 19 2010 18:01 blitzkrieger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 17:56 Nutype wrote:
After reading the whole thread so far, i have learned one thing. Blitzkreiger is a joke. I think everyone will agree with me. The reason you believe in religion is because you have morals in the first place. Morlas dont come from religion. Religion comes from morals. After reading the whole thread so far, i have learned one thing. Nutype is a joke. I think everyone will agree with me. The reason you believe in atheism is because ???. Morals dont come from religion. Morals come from God. Also MY LIFE FOR AUIR!
Troll elsewhere.
|
On September 19 2010 18:01 blitzkrieger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 17:56 Nutype wrote:
After reading the whole thread so far, i have learned one thing. Blitzkreiger is a joke. I think everyone will agree with me. The reason you believe in religion is because you have morals in the first place. Morlas dont come from religion. Religion comes from morals. After reading the whole thread so far, i have learned one thing. Nutype is a joke. I think everyone will agree with me. The reason you believe in atheism is because ???. Morals dont come from religion. Morals come from God. Also MY LIFE FOR AUIR!
this guy is the best troll ever. gg. by the way, you dont "believe" in atheism. I like how you treat atheism as a religion.
|
On September 19 2010 17:59 kammeyer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 17:58 hifriend wrote:On September 19 2010 17:42 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:37 hifriend wrote:On September 19 2010 17:34 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:26 TOloseGT wrote:On September 19 2010 17:23 blitzkrieger wrote:On September 19 2010 17:10 Blix wrote:On September 19 2010 17:01 blitzkrieger wrote:
I hate getting into these arguments because I don't have any sources for anything anymore... but there is no value to human life in atheism at all. Humans are just another animal. If you can profit off the expense of another human thats fine.
Do you realize that this (and one of your previous statements) is actually quite offensive to atheists? Yes. I find offense in many things everyday all day. If you can show me how this isn't true please tell me. Atheism strips meaning and purpose and value from everything except self preservation and reproduction. Very enlightening, where's your proof of THIS? Thats what atheism is by definition. I don't know how to explain it any better. Evolution Goals: 1: Self Preserve 2: Reproduce (once reproduce 1 is null). If you want to explain "atheism by definition," how about looking up the definition of atheism rather than bringing up the natural mechanics of evolution. "Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist." An atheist could reject the theory of evolution and still be an atheist. Ok then tell me where you get your morals and why these are to be followed. I'm not sure that's something I could easily explain to you if you can't grasp it on your own, but I'll give it a shot. First of all compassion is something very real and while it sure as hell doesn't show in all aspects of our world I do believe it exists. Then there's tribalism in various forms (religion, patriotism, and even family) that in a way hinders true compassion for our species. If you look at the origins of our species, many things indicate that even at the very beginning there was a form of compassion between members within different tribes. Some studies have found evidence that humans born with large deficits have lived relatively long lives in prehistoric times, which is staggering because it wouldn't be possible unless parents and other members of the same tribe gave a large bit of attention and care to those individuals. If we fast-forward a couple of thousand years, tribalism has in a way extended and a lot of people are suddenly compassionate toward members of different sort of groups such as citizens of a nation, religious groups etcetera. In my mind the next step seems very obvious in that with time, people will be able to be compassionate toward our species as a whole. There are even studies about compassion in monkeys, check this out. + Show Spoiler +Imagine an experiment where you have some monkeys in a cage. There are two chains. Chain A will provide a large quantity of food for the monkeys. Chain B will provide a small quantity of food. Next the experimenters set it up so that pulling chain A will also give an electric shock to another monkey in another cage. The monkeys can see each other. And in particular the monkeys sees the pain of the shocked monkey. It is easy formulate the conclusion, even for a monkey, that pulling on the chain that gives the large food reward will result in pain for another monkey.
Now the question is whether the monkeys will continue to pull on the chain A to get the large food reward or will the monkeys be sensitive to the other monkey's pain. What is your guess?
The result as published in a paper by Stephenie Preston of University of California at Berkeley and Frans de Waal of Emory University showed that the monkeys no longer pulled on chain A which administers the shock. Two-thirds of the monkey will only pull on chain B which does not administer any shock. And the remaining third will not pull on any chain for as long as 5 days. There was one monkey that refused to pull on either chain for as long as 12 days. Quoting from the paper: "These monkeys were literally starving themselves to prevent the shock to the conspecific." This indicates that monkeys exhibit empathy, and some can say compassion, and other say altruism. Whatever term you call it, it is clear that even in primate monkeys, an individual is able to relate to the pain of another individual and will make decisions that will reduce the other's pain. I find this infinitely more amazing than anything I read in the bible (yeah I read it.) Haha, I love when people compare monkeys to human beings as if they're anywhere near as intellectually and culturally developed as we are. Absolutely fantastic.
Are you cognitively challenged or something? Read my post, it's highly related as we origin from a common ancestor. What I'm saying is that as evidence shows, it's likely that compassion and empathy are natural traits of our species. If he asks, I'm going to answer.
|
You're clearly unaware of what ethnic cleansing is. You're comparing killing every black person in Detroit to killing off nearly an entire ethnicity in Israel? Are you retarded?
You religious folk really like to play the random word spewing thing when you don't have anything to say.
So you're saying kill every black person in Detroit isn't an ethnic cleansing? Yes or No. Look, I really don't know what to say. So you're point is the Bible isn't quite as bad as Nazism, its more on the level of the KKK?
Who is more moral?
The man who helps his struggling neighbour because he believes that is what god wishes of him.
Or
The man who helps his struggling neighbour because he feels empathy for a fellow human being.
While this would be an excellent example of "religion going wrong", I'm just gonna say not all religious people are motivated to do good stuff because of a reward in the afterlife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
