Originally posted by David Cr@p
Heaven forfend that your ego should be shattered to discover there is no higher purpose to your existence. Why can't it simply be a matter of enjoying your reality, and maybe reproduce along the way? Why try to attach some deeper significance to it all? For all you know, you might be a meat animal on an abandoned farm.
There are just so many things foolish about this statement, I'm tempted to leave it to its folly - but I've been where DC's been, and I've come a long way since, so here's my quick throw of more serious discussion...
Originally posted by bbra
Well, I await your future post. Perhaps a new thread is in order, because I often see this claim made in the forums, and I can't remember it ever being systematically addressed. As a quick rejoinder, suppose that the world is completely mechanistic, and that our psychologies can be reduced to biochemistry, or chemistry or physics. Would that entail that the love you have for your friends is any less real or important?
"I suppose the reason we leaped at "The Origin of the Species" is because the idea of God interferes with our sexual mores"
- Aldous Huxley
This was my motive for believing evolution for some time - it gave me free will to do as I desired without having to worry about some "greater being" to whom I may be accountable to. I did what most did: universe self existing? billions of years of mere chance? hey, no God! I can self-exist as I please and do (as David C so aptly said, "enjoy your reality and maybe reproduce along the way...) After several near-death experiences and witnessing a death of a close family member, re-evaluating life, searching for meaning in tragedy, and looking a little deeper into what I believed when I was challenged by people I respect.
Looking deeper into evolution - as concluded by bbra and DC - if chance and time somehow got us here, man is no more than matter, all emotions, desires, temptation, love, hate - our very consciousness can be broken down to bio-chemistry. We are no more than a complex lump of matter that exists by accident and has one purpose: survival (I'll come back to this one).
This lead to several conclusions (which I later discovered as I read through my many books I had on evolution):
1. Man has no more intrinsic value than a smart ape or a cow in a suburban herd and will ultimately die and be recycled into the ecosystem
2. There is no right and wrong (the only law is gravity, survival and ultimate death)
3. Man has no free will (all man is doing is acting to bio-chemical reactions dictated by his surroundings)
If man has no more value than a bug, and survival is the only law, and if I feel threatened by a fellow bug, what would stop me from killing him? If I felt attracted and aroused by my best friend's wife, and I want to ensure the survival of my gene, what would stop me from having sex with her - perhaps even raping her? What would compell anyone to risk his life for someone he doesn't know (thinking of the hundreds of firemen who died on 9/11) Can I decide anything? Nobody has chosen to love me - it just so happens that the right chemical combination popped into our heads... The heart-ache I feel at the loss of a loved one is nothing more than a temporary chemical imbalance.
I was too conscious of my free will, my consciousness, my mind and reason. Mere chance and chemical reactions can't explain my existence and the universe... If I may be as bold to assert, evolution is truly a theory that tries to divorce man from accountability from God, and most people are dumb enough to think that's all there is to it. Like a kid given a new car has no ideas of the implications of ownership (paying for gas, needing a driver's license, threat to life on the road, insurance... yeah, I know, a poor analogy).
Then I looked at the very bond that holds evolution together "Survival of the fittest" and I realised that the instinct of survival goes against the laws of nature. Why survive? It's a struggle, it's tough and pointless... Why not simply obey the law of thermodynamics and gravity (just lay down and die). So how did life emerge in a universe governed by this law (all things become colder and degenerate to the simplest form) - mere chance? I started hating that term, because I know what a cop-out it is. It's difficult to make anything work, how could mere chance create a solar system in perfect balance, an complex eco-system, incredibly complex organisms and just studying the human eye left me astounded at the perfect design of just that one organ. Think for a moment: have you ever scribbled on a page trying to get a pen to write and actually wrote a flawless symphony? Evolution is far less possible and the more time you give chaos, the less chance there is for success!
There is so much more in evolution that left me shaking my head and now leaves me laughing (for one, how evolutionists will continuously refer to micro-evolution as proof for macro-evolution and how they religiously bring up the only beneficial mutation - sickle-celled anemia on malaria - like chopping off ones feet and never having to worry about athlete's foot... it goes on), I wouldn't want to spend an age going through them all. In essence, this is just a disorganised spitball on what lead me away from evolution.
I believe man does have values and rights (as the American constitution so elegantly states). I believe there is right and wrong. I believe I have a free will.
Excuse this post for being long and a little scattered - I'm tired from a thru-the-night shift...
Originally posted by RatXOr to put it briefly . . .
Originally posted by David Cr@p
[b]Heaven forfend that your ego should be shattered to discover there is no higher purpose to your existence. Why can't it simply be a matter of enjoying your reality, and maybe reproduce along the way? Why try to attach some deeper significance to it all? For all you know, you might be a meat animal on an abandoned farm ...[text shortened]... this post for being long and a little scattered - I'm tired from a thru-the-night shift...[/b]
RatX accepted the fact of evolution solely because he found atheism appealing.
Later RatX experienced some things in his life that made him disatisfied with atheism. RatX began to doubt the fact of evolution because he disliked his sole reason for accepting evolution in the first place.
He then decided that there must be one god because he would prefer that there be one god. He decided to deny the fact of evolution because he wanted there to be one god.
Originally posted by RatXOriginally posted by RatX
This was my motive for believing evolution for some time - it gave me free will to do as I desired without having to worry about some "greater being" to whom I may be accountable to.
1. Man has no more intrinsic value than a smart ape or a cow in a suburban herd and will ultimately die and be recycled into the ecosystem
2. There is no right and wrong (t ...[text shortened]... cuse this post for being long and a little scattered - I'm tired from a thru-the-night shift...
1. Man has no more intrinsic value than a smart ape or a cow in a suburban herd and will ultimately die and be recycled into the ecosystem
2. There is no right and wrong (the only law is gravity, survival and ultimate death)
3. Man has no free will (all man is doing is acting to bio-chemical reactions dictated by his surroundings)
These conclusions are crap, even for those who don't believe in god.
1.Man has more intrinsic value because he is more complex and has more ability to act on his surroundings than other animals. Man has the ability to save or destroy other species, build the most massive structures, and advance knowledge over generations.
2.We know individually what pain and loss feels like. Nobody will endure either for long if they can avoid it. Right and wrong stem from an understanding that unnecessary pain and suffering ought to be avoided. You don't need god or creation to understand that.
3.Even if we don't have free will, I find the illusion convincing. People feel regret at past 'poor' decisions - why? If it were a simple matter of reacting to stimuli, then the decision would be the same in every case. If it is a matter of the stimuli being too complex to understand what choice will result, then we can't see beyond the illusion anyway, and we might as well live as if we had free choice.
Originally posted by RatX
If I may be as bold to assert, evolution is truly a theory that tries to divorce man from accountability from God, and most people are dumb enough to think that's all there is to it.
Evolution does not have anything to say about the possibility of god. As far as we know, it could be the method that a god or other powerful being used to create the world.
Originally posted by RatXYou xtians are fond of the belief that animals have no souls . Therefore , I would ask you why doesn't an elk turn on his herd members and gore them ? Why doesn't a lioness eat her cubs when she's hungry ? Why doesn't an ant go it alone instead of slaving for the colony ? Why don't dogs turn on their masters ? After all , if none of these creatures has any "higher purpose" , what's in it for them to act socially ? And with the exception of the ant , all of these animals exhibit a certain amount of free will .(Which contradicts your point #3 . BTW - There is no logical connection between there being no god and the human animal having no free will because he is biochemical in nature and influenced by his surroundings to a degree .)
Originally posted by David Cr@p
[b]Heaven forfend that your ego should be shattered to discover there is no higher purpose to your existence. Why can't it simply be a matter of enjoying your reality, and maybe reproduce along the way? Why try to attach some deeper significance to it all? For all you know, you might be a meat animal on an abandoned farm ...[text shortened]... cuse this post for being long and a little scattered - I'm tired from a thru-the-night shift...
Has it occured to you that there are many law abiding athiests in society ? Indeed there are many societies that have never heard of your christian god , are even war like to their neighbors , yet do not turn on each other . This is because we are social creatures . It is to our advantage long term to get along with one another . It has nothing to do with god or a soul . I don't believe in god . But I have no urge to steal , or rape my neighbor's wife , or cheat someone in a business deal . These things would be antisocial , and no one would want to deal with me in the future . So it would be counter-productive to me in the long term .
I don't think you know your fellow man or what motivates him very well .
Edit - Why this came out in bold text was unintentional . Must have pressed the wrong key somewhere along the line .
Originally posted by telerionWrong, wrong and wrong again... Your jumping to conclusions is astounding - just shows your closed-minded bigotted view.
Or to put it briefly . . .
RatX accepted the fact of evolution solely because he found atheism appealing.
Later RatX experienced some things in his life that made him disatisfied with atheism. RatX began to doubt the fact of evolution because he disliked his sole reason for accepting evolution in the first place.
He then decided that there must ...[text shortened]... ere be one god. He decided to deny the fact of evolution because he wanted there to be one god.
I accepted evolution because I was taught it was Science. I dropped it when I discovered it wasn't. I don't prefer to have one god - I was convinced of this on multiple levels - not using selective evidence. I decided to research it all - reading books ranging from "Origin of Species" to "Mein Kampf" to "Battle for Truth".
I deny the fact of evolution because it lacks evidence, it doesn't make sense, it is not science and is a laughable theory.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemHmmm... Think a little deeper, your statements are very shallow.
Originally posted by RatX
[b]1. Man has no more intrinsic value than a smart ape or a cow in a suburban herd and will ultimately die and be recycled into the ecosystem
2. There is no right and wrong (the only law is gravity, survival and ultimate death)
3. Man has no free will (all man is doing is acting to bio-chemical reactions dictated by ...[text shortened]... as we know, it could be the method that a god or other powerful being used to create the world.
What should motivate man to save other species, why should he build great structures and to what end? If intrinsic value is based on intelligence, why do we tolerate idiots like you?
The idea that a god used evolution to create this world is hogwallop - why would a god use such a wasteful and death-riddled method of hit-and-miss over billions of pointless years of chance? There is so much more that is simply silly about "controlled evolution" it doesn't merit response.
Originally posted by Moldy CrowThe very reasons you give on the way animals live together is evidence for design.
You xtians are fond of the belief that animals have no souls . Therefore , I would ask you why doesn't an elk turn on his herd members and gore them ? Why doesn't a lioness eat her cubs when she's hungry ? Why doesn't an ant go it alone instead of slaving for the colony ? Why don't dogs turn on their masters ? After all , if none of these creatures h ...[text shortened]... out in bold text was unintentional . Must have pressed the wrong key somewhere along the line .
Sadly, there are very few purist athiests - we all have a conscience and have a realisation of right and wrong (proof again that there is more to us than chemicals).
I have been in contact with a greater variation of people than you have - I know hundreds of drug addicts, convicted felons, smart and dumb, thiests and athiests. I think I know very much about my fellow man and I understand motivations. I don't think you've been in a situation where you sincerely want to kill someone else and the only thing holding you back is your principles (tell me what would keep you from shooting a rapist when you pull them off your sister and there are no other witnesses?)
Live in the real world and your views will change...
Originally posted by RatXYour first statement is just plain stupid . A poor attempt at insult which draws away from the origional arguement . Are you here simply to attempt to ridicule those who don't agree with you , or to honestly debate about topics like this ? This shows how disingenious you really are .
Hmmm... Think a little deeper, your statements are very shallow.
What should motivate man to save other species, why should he build great structures and to what end? If intrinsic value is based on intelligence, why do we tolerate idiots like you?
The idea that a god used evolution to create this world is hogwallop - why would a god use such a wasteful a ...[text shortened]... is so much more that is simply silly about "controlled evolution" it doesn't merit response.
To your second "point" ; there are many motivations to save species and build great structures . Do you think only those believing god are capable of their own seperate motivations for such things ? It can come down to something as simple and functional as "I want to save this species because the ecosystem I live in will be healthy for it ." or " I wish to build this grand structure to create rentable office space to collect lots of money ." None of these motivations have anything to do with belief in a higher being and are amoral .
Third - Once again , TOE itself does not address the existence of god .
Originally posted by RatXNo , the reasons I give are not evidence of a design or designer . Those things I cited may be used as a support for an ID theory , but alone they are not proof of that . They may also be used in support of TOE , but alone are not proof of TOE either . Your claim of such would be similar to me telling you I flew to work today on a magic carpet . If you demanded proof , me simply pointing to the carpet and saying "Well see ? There's the carpet , there's your proof ." There is not a body of evidence to support my claim .
The very reasons you give on the way animals live together is evidence for design.
Sadly, there are very few purist athiests - we all have a conscience and have a realisation of right and wrong (proof again that there is more to us than chemicals).
I have been in contact with a greater variation of people than you have - I know hundreds of drug addicts, c ...[text shortened]... ister and there are no other witnesses?)
Live in the real world and your views will change...
No the fact that we have what you call a conscience is not proof there is more to us than chemicals . (See above for for substantiation of "proof" ).
Third - You have been in contact with a greater variation of people than I ? You arrogant bastard ! How do you know this ? How do you have the slightest idea what kind of people I've been in touch with ? What kind of life I have lived ? Your assumption is based on nothing more than your own hubris , as are your arguements .
Originally posted by RatXOriginally posted by RatX
Hmmm... Think a little deeper, your statements are very shallow.
What should motivate man to save other species, why should he build great structures and to what end? If intrinsic value is based on intelligence, why do we tolerate idiots like you?
The idea that a god used evolution to create this world is hogwallop - why would a god use such a wasteful a ...[text shortened]... is so much more that is simply silly about "controlled evolution" it doesn't merit response.
Hmmm... Think a little deeper, your statements are very shallow.
Since I don't agree with your basic principles, I had to start with the basics. However, judging from your tone, you're not really interested in looking any deeper.
Originally posted by RatX
What should motivate man to save other species, why should he build great structures and to what end?
To improve quality of life.
Originally posted by RatX
If intrinsic value is based on intelligence, why do we tolerate idiots like you?
What a lame insult. Surely you can do better. Read some of no1marauder's posts for inspiration if you need it.
Originally posted by RatX
The idea that a god used evolution to create this world is hogwallop - why would a god use such a wasteful and death-riddled method of hit-and-miss over billions of pointless years of chance? There is so much more that is simply silly about "controlled evolution" it doesn't merit response.
From what I read about god, he hasn't got a problem with things being 'death-riddled'. Remember Noah's flood? The rebellion of Korah?
A number of things were posted by RatX
1.) I would like to say that I am glad that you have found a lifestyle and belief system that allows you to be a more productive and positive member of our society than you were previously.
2.) As for social attitudes: any thinking being will choose acting as a society over acting as an autonomous being, since acting as a society is more efficient and allows for greater personal benefits. This requires some freedoms to be passed up.
3.) You give an example of my sister being raped, and coming upon the scene with only myself, my sister, and the rapist present, and ask about my response.
* To kill the rapist would make an even more traumatizing experience for my sister. That's 1 point for not killing him.
* Even with no witnesses other than my sister, forensic evidence will eventually lead back to me; especially if anyone ever learns tha my sister was attacked or raped. I will receive punishment from society. That's 2 points for not killing him.
* If I attempt to kill him, he will (almost) certainly attempt to defend his own life. I might lose. I might die. That's 3 points for not killing him.
* The sight of blood makes me queasy. I would probably become violently ill if I successfully killed someone, since I often vomit if I see someone with a minor cut or enough scratches to be bleeding. That's 4 points for not killing him.
* He's a sexual offender; most methods I would have available for killing him involve blood; he's at a higher risk for having a disease than the average person, and that blood will put me at a higher risk for acquiring the disease. That's 5 points for not killing him.
* I try to deny myself actions based on anger, even if they are the same actions I will later decide upon through contemplation. I believe that careful thought should be put into any important action, especially if it irreversible. Once the anger passes, I'll probably realize that I can identify the rapist and the proper societally-enabled authorities can punish him for his transgression. That's 6 points for not killing him.
* There's always the chance I'll just kill him.
I don't see how belief in God affects any of these decisions, really, other than a Christian might take Deuteronomy to heart and kill the rapist if the sister was married, or demand they be married if the sister were virginal and unbetrothed...
Originally posted by Moldy CrowWhen it comes to evolution, it all comes down to random chance - so how does accident produce an ecosystem in perfect balance, and if it does, why should man endevour to interfere with the course of time by trying to save a species?
No , the reasons I give are not evidence of a design or designer . Those things I cited may be used as a support for an ID theory , but alone they are not proof of that . They may also be used in support of TOE , but alone are not proof of TOE either . Your claim of such would be similar to me telling you I flew to work today on a magic carpet . If you de ...[text shortened]... lived ? Your assumption is based on nothing more than your own hubris , as are your arguements .
I'm pointing to proof in the instinct of animals which accident will never be able to imprint, which random chance will never be able to enforce. And the answer to why survival is necessary is still not answered in evolution (it's always stated to simply be a law - yet it contradicts the law of thermodynamics).
How do you know anything about me? Well, you seem to draw conclusions on my posts and so do I extract from yours... You claimed I have no understanding of human motivation - you arrogant ass! How do you know this?
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemFrom what I read about god, he hasn't got a problem with things being 'death-riddled'. Remember Noah's flood? The rebellion of Korah?
Originally posted by RatX
[b]Hmmm... Think a little deeper, your statements are very shallow.
Since I don't agree with your basic principles, I had to start with the basics. However, judging from your tone, you're not really interested in looking any deeper.
Originally posted by RatX
What should motivate man to save othe ...[text shortened]... t a problem with things being 'death-riddled'. Remember Noah's flood? The rebellion of Korah?
[/b]You don't have the slightest grasp of context.
In relation to creating life, why would a god be as wasteful and weak and useless as to use a process of random chance to create life? Why can't he get it right the first time? Why use millions of years and billions of deaths?
Oh, quality of life? Where does this come in? Who made you judge of what the goal and purpose of existence is?
I'll take the tip on no1 and see if I can build up 😉 Currently too tired to start insulting.
Originally posted by echecero[/b]1. Thanks
A number of things were posted by RatX
1.) I would like to say that I am glad that you have found a lifestyle and belief system that allows you to be a more productive and positive member of our society than you were previously.
2.) As for social attitudes: any thinking being will choose acting as a society over acting as an autonomous being, since ...[text shortened]... the sister was married, or demand they be married if the sister were virginal and unbetrothed...
2. I think here that thinking is a very important term. Within the context of random chance, how did intelligent thinking come to be? I find this one an area that all my research on evolution never fully answered - I would appreciate an article without the maybes and possiblies and if's that litter most evolution articles...
3. When logically breaking it down, you're right - all those reasons should be what keeps one from "doing it" - but these are reasons of logic and thinking and current society. Firstly, you will be seeing red and little reason. Secondly, as in my current society, justice does not prevail for both murderers and rapists (here I know that 5% of rapists may be charged and 15% of murderers may be charged). Under these circumstances - things are left more to will than reason. Unless I have principles by which I live (This one hasn't been answered! - Evolution doesn't give me a basis to determine right and wrong) in my case, it is wrong to take the law into your own hands and give the rapist his just sentence.
What I'm trying to say is - if you have no outside influences, like enforced law - and you were faced with a guy who has raped and murdered your daughter (just pushing it further) and you faced no consequences (like jail or disease) and you had the full power to kill him (black-belt, ex-military and armed with a 12-gauge), what would stop you? Ultimately, it will be your will, which cannot be explained by evolution and chemical reactions........
When it comes to the Christian world-view, which I've studied, justice is demanded, which requires very stringent procedure - at least 2 witnesses and the sentence supervised by a judiciary... Unless the guy runs off and leaves me no choice but to shoot his naked ass.
How many people follow the Deutoronomical code? Aren't you being a little fatuous here?
But for the rest of your post, I appreciate your controlled demenour with a little more thinking than the rest usually crap out...