The good atheist I'm proud of. But why do they care? (Moved from Kill 'Em WIth Kindness Forum)
Offline Why is there cancer? Why is there disease, suffering and cruel death?
The questions posed by the kind-hearted atheist. That query is really the best position to hold for the atheist to take their stand among the great thinkers and doers of "human" history.
I wonder why though, if they are evolutionists, especially Darwinian evolutionists (which seems ubiquitous), they even feel caring about others?
Does the lion feel such a crushing weight of remorse or guilt when its prey, after an attempted murderous attack, gets away with a shattered leg? Only to die in pain and agony ending up the carion meal of some other animal?
Isn't cancer and disease just proof that the individual having the condition is just an inferior individual?
I have always admired an atheist stepping out of the evolutionary concept of survival of the fittest and caring about the inferiority of another person getting what their gentics called for.
It seems supernatural to care for others.
Well done. Good and faithful servant of mankind.
0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.
- Login to post comments
0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.
I wonder why though, if they are evolutionists, especially Darwinian evolutionists (which seems ubiquitous), they even feel caring about others?
There is no such thing as a non-Darwinian evolutionist. Granted there are other mechanisms of evolution like endosymbiotics, but without natural selection there is no evolution.
Does the lion feel such a crushing weight of remorse or guilt when its prey, after an attempted murderous attack, gets away with a shattered leg? Only to die in pain and agony ending up the carion meal of some other animal?
Actually it was Dawkins who wrote that because humans are conscious, the greatest triumph of mankind was to "gain power over the selfish replicators". In an essay called Crossing the River out of Eden, I concured and wrote:
Look at man! The pedestal of four billion years of painstaking progress, a drive upwards which has been wrought with death and the ruthlessness of nature in symbiosis with the fragility of life. The instincts imprinted onto man, instincts which no doubt had tremenous Natural selection benefits, are no doubt self-intersted and violent. Every time a rush of adrenaline (a mechanism which has existed in animal life for many millions of years) shoots through your bloodstream, you will understand the feeling of power and narcissism. Yet...it has also given us a flexible set of tools for getting what we want. Whenever you see a chimp picking the lice out of the back of one of his fellows, whenever you see birds feeding each other, for no apparent gain to themselves, you are witnessing altruism.
Although evolution creates selfish organisms, they co-operate to form societies whose mutual benefit thusly maxamizes the rewards of the individual. Human society of course rests at the top of it now. And what would seem best of all from our standpoint, is that we have broken free from the Selfish replicators. As the socities we create no longer have foundations in the instincts with two million years on the African Savannah fine-tuned, our evolution is not genetic but cultural, a unit of information which can move many million times faster than the genes. As evolution has given us abilities like empathy (which is the result of a mirror-neuron wiring, quite a recent introduction into animal neurology) as well as altruism, we have turned the tables on the genes, once our lords and masters. Now, we exist in organiztions which to the genes must surely seem so unnatural, and so unusual. Yet they were their own undoing. They gave us neuroplasticity, they gave us endocrine balance, they gave us mirror neurons and altruistic tendancies...
Is it safe to say, I wonder, that we, the first truly sentient entities to inhabit the planet, have beaten the genes?
Isn't cancer and disease just proof that the individual having the condition is just an inferior individual?
See above.
I have always admired an atheist stepping out of the evolutionary concept of survival of the fittest and caring about the inferiority of another person getting what their gentics called for.
See above. By the way, this is fallacious reasoning, commiting a genetic fallacy and an argument from nature fallacy. If you do not know what these are, find out.
It seems supernatural to care for others.
See above. I have used biology to demonstrate this false.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Anthropomorphism. The lion that kills, eats. The lion that doesn't goes hungry. Lions feel as much guilt about eating zebras as I do about eating chickens. None.
I hunt and fish, so if your going to ask me if I feel guilty about killing my food, the answer is no. I know where meat comes from.
I roll up my sleeve and give blood a few times a year. It helps others. It's no supernatural event. I have O+ blood, the most common. There's a great need for it. But you want to know the truth? I do it for the free t-shirts!
I have a closet full of them. Plus if I or my family is in need of blood we get some kind of discount I believe. Not only that, I also get a free blood test. (pressure/cholesterol/ect) Mine is coming down all across the board!
I also donate money to the United Way through work. It helps others too. I get a tax write-off as well.
All survival of the fittest means is the fast lions eat and the fast zebras don't get eaten. The fit animal's odds of passing genes to the next generation increases. There are no emotions involved.
There's nothing to step out of.
But if you are in a herd of zebras... watch where you step!
Ever "hang-ten" on the bow of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier at 30+ knots?
Well guys (or whatever),
The lengths to which the evolutionists go to to prove their unmovable premise is fascinating to watch.
All of this Darwinian-derived lovefest that our genetics have supposedly taken us to, is bringing our planet to a point where all of the scientific (money manking) caring for each other - the discovering means to stop diseased people (the inferior individuals of our species) from dying - could end up killing everyone on the planet.
Evolution is making a mistake if survival and improvement is the mechanism it possesses. Helping people and "caring" about them seems tremendously counter productive if cause and effect is still a scientific method of gaining the truth.
In other words, an atheist that possesses the ability to care for others, may indeed be a proof for a designer that has implanted this "feeling" in our genetic code.
0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.
You do realize that The Origin of The Species is a science book, not a guide to life itself, right? It seems religious people tend to look for direct equivalents in ideas that have excluded their conceits. That the anthropological evidence suggests civilizations ran, unabated, through the supposed time of a worldwide flood, doesn't mean anthropologists claim to have the meaning of life. It only suggests Noah's Ark is a fiction.
Does the lion indiscriminately kill members of his or her own pack? Lions are violent and nasty creatures, but they have a set social order. Do bees, all endowed with stingers, use them constantly against their own hive simply because they can? Your premise suggests that every human being is potentially a sociopath. Since you make a point about atheists, I'm assuming you're begging the question of morals being derived from religious dogma. In that case, we shouldn't see any religious person behaving deliberately in a manner inconsistent with his or her religion. If you say they're not sincere in their faith, then how do we know who is sincere? If you say only “god” knows, then what sort of indicator is religion supposed to be for us?
A slippery slope argument? Please.
Not at all. Your model of humanity is a dysfunctional straw-man and would have long gone extinct out of its incapacity for cooperation.
Tu quoque.
I can't even glean an actual argument from this.
This just sounds like a non sequitur to me.
That rationalization is not only unjustified, but totally unnecessary. There is a strong case for biologically derived morals, and they are in fact the basis for all cooperative animals. If early humans had simply struck out on their own there is a slim chance they would survive in the presence of animals so much stronger and more cunning than they. The ones who tended to cooperate tended to survive, tended to breed, hence the strong presence of sociability and cooperation in modern man. It's not just man, either. Even chimpanzees have been shown to possess qualities of altruism and self-sacrifice. But hey, maybe they were Christian chimps. I'll leave you that argument, since you have none to spare.
He merely repeated his tired arguments again in his second post. Never mind that he didn't bother to respond, or that I showed him that his claims of empathy from "design" are rubbish. He is a charlatan who knows nothing about evolutionary physcology, neurology, cognitive neuroscience, etc ad infinitum. I pointed out twice that he commited a genetic fallacy and an argument from nature fallacy, and the biological evidence for what he claimed was spiritual. He is a half-baked troll, not a scientist, and as such, his opinion on the matter is worth nothing.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Where's that excellent essay on morality without god?
Also, I would recommend that the OP actually learn something about evolution. Cooperation and empathy were good for our survival, dude. Mirror neurons are a fascinating topic.
deludedgod, do you think sociopaths lack the mirror neuron response? Has there been a study that found lack of the mirror neuron function in anyone?
(I'll probably Google it...)
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Well, he did say himself he wasn't going to listen.
deludedgod, do you think sociopaths lack the mirror neuron response? Has there been a study that found lack of the mirror neuron function in anyone?
Interesting. Mirror neuron wiring faults tends to be associated with autism, not sociopaths. You are stepping out of my field and more into todangst's, however. at the far end of the spectrum, Autistic children have a severe inability to interact with others. They are incapable of normal speech, not because of a problem with formation of vocal chords or anything along those lines, but rather because the mirror neurons are wired improperly (or so the theory goes), ant any rate.
Sociopaths, on the other hand, have no problem of this sort. In fact, they tend to be better at speech than most and usually have high IQs. They are very slick and silver-tongued, the exact opposite of an autistic child. But even an autistic child should have a normal EQ. However, a sociopath lacks the ability to empathize. Again, I am not sure of this, the best person to talk to would be todangst.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Well, he did say himself he wasn't going to listen.
Where did he say that?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Another thread,another subject.
But as you can see, he would rather listen to himself on what we think, then get the information from the source.
Quote: Untl then, I would like to know how something can come from nothing? That is what an atheist believes no matter the rhetoric to deny it
Well, in that case he is very ignorant of quantum physics too.
That was discussed here by me:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/miscellanous_forums/6990
If he is listening (he's probably left, so no matter, he should read the discussion following the article about the singularity).
Also, ex nihilo creation, whatever his absurd objections, do not violate the laws of quantum physics. I was in correspondence with another member about the subject only hours ago, and this what I wrote:
Now, if you look around at some of the evolution forums, like the one titled "evolution" started by impeached, and the one titled "comments on the nightline debate" started by noexcuse, you will notice that my responses to each contain a section on the laws of Thermodynamics, which explains in long detail what Victor is referring to. However, this explanation is long and full of formulae. The simple premise is that everything progresses to lower energy states. Now, I agree with Victor about ex nihilo, but I am multiverse theorist, so I would contend that the term "nothing" as we understand, means nothing (ironic). Try envisioning "nothing". Impossible. What victor refers to as "nothing" is technically someting.
What he was talking about, as I said, is spontaneous breaking. Imagine a dam holding back water. This dam is perched on top of a hill blocking a river. If the dam was not there the water would naturally take the path of least resistance and flow downhill. SImple. The water has progressed to a lower energy state, as nature commands. But with the dam there, the water cannot flow downhill. Nonetheless, the water cannot get over the dam, and thus, even though the water is not in its lowest energy state, the arrangement is relatively stable. It is for this same reason that organisms, which are extremely far from chemical equilibirum, do not spontaneously combust.
If the dam is cracked and bursts, the water will flow from the false vacuum, the dam, to the true vacuum, the water. This false vacuum may have been the original state of the universe and it is what victor refers to as "nothing". We also call it a singularity. A singularity is a point where mathematical relationship is not defined. The universe is believed to have been born out of a singularity after a false vacuum fluctuation, when all the essential forces were unified into one.
The universe today is like a broken mirror, with the four forces ruling it disjointed and separate from each other. This is because the original vacuum arrangement is unstable. It broke, and from it gushed the true vacuum- the universe. This unified state, the vacuum arrangement, has another name- nothing.
To quote Victor J Stenger in God, The Failed Hypothesis:
> "If the laws of physics follow naturally from empty space-time then where did that empty space-time come from? why is there something rather than nothing? This question is often the last recourse of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of god from physics and cosmology and finds that all his other arguements fail. Philosopher Bede Rundle calls it "Philosophy's central, and most perplexing, question." His simple (But book length) answer: "There has to be something" (God the failed hypothesis Pg 132.)
>
> "How do we define "nothing"? What are its properties? If it has properties, doesn't that make it something? The theist claims that God is the answer. But, then, why is there god rather than nothing? Assuming we can define "nothing," Why should nothing be a more natural state of affairs than something? In fact, we can give plausible scientific reason based on our best current knowledge of physics and cosmology that osmething more natural than nothing!" (God the failed hypothesis Pg 132.)
>
> "Nature is capable of building complex structures by processes of self-organization, how simplicity begets complexity. Consider the example of the snowflake, the beautiful six-pointed pattern of ice crystals that results from the direct freezing of water vaopr in the atmosphere. Our experience tells us that a snowflake is very ephemeral, melting quickly into drops of liquid water the exhibit far less structure. But that is only because we live in a relatively high-temperature environment, where heat reduces the fragile arrangement of crystals to a simpler liquid. Energy is required to break the symmetry of a snowflake." (God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)
>
> "In an environment where the ambient temperature is well below the melting point of ice, as it is in most of the universe far from the highly localized effects of stellar heating, any water should readily crystallize into complex asymetric structures. Snowflakes would be eternal, or at least would remain instact untill comic rays tore them apart."(God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)
>
> "This example illustrates that many simple systems of particles are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since "Nothing" is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would likely undergo a spoontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter." "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would be be that 'nothing' is unstable." (God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I went to Wiki (yeah, I know...) and the article on mirror neurons speculated that they play a role in developing empathy. Sociopaths may not have empathy, but many are very good at getting what they want and part of that is being able to manipulate others, which might be hard to do without functional mirror neurons.
Then I checked out the parrot page, which I edited yesterday and got ****ed because they put it back the way it was and it's incorrect. They mislabeled a Panama Amazon as a yellow-naped Amazon. I told them their mistake and told them how to properly identify a yellow-naped Amazon, but today it's wrong again...D'OH!
Actually, all the Amazons with yellow on their heads are Amazona ochrecephala, but there are several subspecies. My bird is Amazona ochrecephala oratrix. A yellow-naped Amazon is Amazona ochrecephala auropalliata. The bird shown is most probably A. ochrecephala panamensis or A. ochrecephala ochrecephala.
LOL...just looked again and they put it back the way I had it. Oh well. I think the subspecies is A. o. panamensis, not A. o. ochrecephala. Whatever. If I change it again to reflect this belief, I wonder if it will "take."
[MOD EDIT - removed curse word]
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I have the origins of Species. Do YOU realize that Darwins Finches are still and always have been "birds?" They are not as yet Gerbils. "The world" in which Noah lived was utterly destroyed. By a flood.
Does the lion indiscriminately kill members of his or her own pack?
umm, human history would lend its support to that being a reality. Especially the godless examples of genocide we ahve witnessed in our recent history.
Scientists pose the theory that religions developed byb evolutionary processes to keep our sociopathic nature at bay.
Not true. A caring atheist can only be caring for seelf-serving reasons. Animals do not possess a justice system.
Straw-man? My model of humanity comes from the written record we call "history" of mankind. And many, many civilizations HAVE gone extinct.