So your explanation for will is natural selection? That's a stretch, man. Your mind is as closed as the zealots you ridicule. I can choose to do a million different things right now. Survival will only be one component of my decision. If I choose to delay immediate satisfaction that will benefit me in the long run in a way that isn't related to physical survival but instead the health of my state of mind, I don't see how you can relate that to natural selection without really warping the concept to fit the situation. You could say it is delusion, but that is your zealous ego speaking. If you can't unhinge your closed mind I'd say that is indicitive of an imbalance. It would depend on the argument you used to back it up. You see reality too rigidly; I believe in the malleability of reality. I believe reality is different to us all from the point of view of experience and development. There are physical laws that science attempts to explain, which is great, but perception is far less rigid. You have no grounds to say that those that believe in God are wrong. You are just unwilling to wrap your mind around the concept of what God could be. You could in fact believe in God and instead just be giving God a scientific name. I believe it can be argued that Christianity changed the trajectory of the world for the better. Maybe not for the better, but in the direction of peace and civility. The concepts of peace, love, and compassion trumpeted by Christianity have made the world a more livable place. Have those that call themselves Christian fallen to their weaker natures? Of course, but that is not on the concepts of love, peace, and civility; you can rest that blame on the shoulders of folks that have not fully embraced the tennants of their chosen spiritual path. If you are railing against organized religions, to an extent I can agree. The leaders are also human and share the frailty of humanity with us of lesser means.
So not you're going to attempt to make the argument that it's okay to kill people with different beliefs than you as long as the ends justify the means? I've heard of people like that... So your religion is for peace, except for those believers who claim to follow your religion, choose to ignore certain texts in your holy book and claim other texts for the purposes of justifying their own personal beliefs in the name of your god? I've heard of people like that, too... Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhaab I have no dispute with making that argument, but every time someone does they like to forget the millions killed in the name of some sort of deity, especially when it stands to reason that all of the deities man has created could not possibly exist. Break each one down to it's own denomination because of differing sub-beliefs and there are hundreds of thousands of different sects of people with like-minded beliefs, many of whom contradict each other. Since so many contradict each other someone who thinks they're going to heaven is really going to hell because they can't all possibly be right. Unless of course you're LEGACY TIGER. Then it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe you're going to heaven and that your actions are right/justified. M y point is that religion and morality are not mutually exclusive. I think we can have morality without killing, judging, etc. because of different beliefs. This is 2009. We have iPhones, microwave ovens, space exploration, advanced medicine, etc. We know that the world is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth and that to cure headaches you don't drill a hole in someone's skull to release evil spirits. We're big boys and girls, now. We shouldn't need fables and ghost stories to deliver the message of treating others the way we want to be treated, don't kill other people and don't steal from them anymore.
Not at all. I have several friends that are atheists that are very intelligent, level-headed and have always given me good advice when I have asked for it in many aspects of life. I mean, sure they are capable of an immoral rampage, but not any moreso than any religious person...maybe more likely. However, that is relative to the individual set of morals so the definition varies from person to person and would probably need it's own thread. It seems to me that a lot of atheists are threatened and offended by religious people because you automatically assume that we walk around feeling better than everyone else. I can tell you that that characteristic is not limited to religion...in fact, talk about making me want to go on an immoral rampage. I'm not perfect, nor have I or ever will I claim to be. I just do my best, just like you. My reasons and standards for "my best" are just different than yours.
natural selection is my answer to any question about animal behavior. like i said if your answer is "magic", then good for you. i cant force anyone not to be a lunatic. i sa your mind is closed about tarot cards and crystal balls the same way my mind is closed about whatever nonsense you believe. how can you be so sure these things are frauds? tenets. i get it. when people are good, it is religion. when religious people are bad it is because they are not actually religious. earlier you said the atheists can make up the moral rules as they go. that is no more true about an atheist than a christian. an atheist isnt going to, for example, blow up an abortion clininc for jesus or bomb a building for allah. i know you would say those folks are perverting the will of god. so lets agree that your point that atheists have no moral code relative to religious folks, is silly. i ceratinly dont think that. again, i think religious people are just kinda emotionally weak and slightly stupider people. that doesnt mean every religious person is a dumbass, it just means that when i meet a really smart person, i am suprised if they are religious. like if i am about to read a book, and i know the author is religious, i dont want to read it because i think it will be stupid and boring. i feel like a modern human has no real excuse for being fooled by the shenanigans of religion.
that is just your viking blood speaking. the rest of us find it slightly less challenging to not go postal. but we still feel the occasional urge. "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. " - mencken.
I'd say the majority of Christians and Muslims are peace loving. Most religions aim to help people overcome their weaknesses and failures, so is it so hard to believe that most religious folks are flawed? I think it is an error in logic to assume that because Christians are flawed, Christianity is flawed. There are also folks out there who will pervert the truth for one reason or another, which can also be related to the flaws many religions talk about. And yes, Christians have commited attrocities, as have Americans, Russians, Chinese, etc. The common denominator is not religion, it is humanity and its flaws. I think it is fair to say that this country was founded using Christian values. The world and this country would probably be a much different place without Christianity. You can say now, "Let's cut out religion," but that ignores the foundation of what exists today. Many of us don't believe our spirituality and faith revolves around fables and ghost stories, and who are you to say that's what those stories are? Anyone who doesn't take spirituality seriously and brushes it off without much of a second thought has no room to criticize. It isn't scientific to assume something is wrong without investigation, it's egocentric. It is not in my species best interest to help little old lady, who is now parasitically leeching from society, across the street. I don't receive a burst of pleasure chemicals when I forgo instant gratification when building the strength of my will. You haven't defended your position well. Before calling them lunatics and frauds I would examine them closely and with an open mind. Our approach to the world is different. You dismiss things without expending the effort to understand it and consider things from a different perspective. You've confined yourself to science and the proovable and seem to have disowned the other aspects of what it is to be human. You must have had a bad crawfish in New York and come to the conclusion that all crawfish is bad. Heh, you're correcting my spelling when you've butchered so many words that you could fill the better part of a "How-Not-To-Spell" dictionary. I already mentioned that I don't have access to Firefox right now, so I can't be expected to spell correctly. Religion tells people to be good and what not to do. When people do good and don't do bad they are a good example of their faith. When people do bad, they are a poor example of their faith.
I said that because it seems that way. You know that Christians have the Bible to live by. I'm not an atheist and I didn't want pretend like I know how you guys operate. I don't know if there is an atheist handbook on morals or not. I don't know where you get your standard from. If I was to guess, I would say you use "common sense" or just do what you feel is right. In a sense, you do what suits you (make it up as you go). Is this incorrect?
