- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
11 Mar 11
3 edits
A friend of mine had the following to say: "Religion dooms you atheism saves you. I'm not being philosophical here. I don't have all the answers, but something tells me that if christians, jews, and muslims agreed there was no god, poof! WORLD PEACE."
My question is" "From an atheistic point of view, why would war be wrong in the first place? If each man is the god of his own little universe and there are no moral absolutes, what makes war wrong? War is perfectly compatible with atheistic evolutionary "survival of the fittest"."
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerIf the 'fittest' are so fit, why do they need to kill? Does evolution give the strong the right to kill the weak? The concept of the 'survival of the fittest' as a reason for war is an excuse for bullies to force their will on others. It seems to me that the strong should defend the weak, that is if they are evolved enough to know better.
A friend of mine had the following to say: "Religion dooms you atheism saves you. I'm not being philosophical here. I don't have all the answers, but something tells me that if christians, jews, and muslims agreed there was no god, poof! WORLD PEACE."
My question is" "From an atheistic point of view, why would war be wrong in the first place? If ...[text shortened]... ng? War is perfectly compatible with atheistic evolutionary "survival of the fittest"."
War occurs for two reasons. As a defense against tyrants, and as a means to dominate and control. Which side are you on? The lines can be blurred sometimes, but to assign blame on those who believe in God is simply ignorant.
If war is caused by reason of evolution, then we are doomed. Someone will always say to themselves that the others have to die so that I can survive until no one is left. People kill for no reason at all sometimes. It has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with mans spiritual condition.
When we blame war on evolution, then we will have sunk to the lowest spiritual darkness imaginable. There will be no reason left to prevent wholesale slaughter.
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerFor one thing, you would not get world peace. Wars are started for many reasons, only some of them religious. It would be a more peaceful world but it would not be a peaceful world.
A friend of mine had the following to say: "Religion dooms you atheism saves you. I'm not being philosophical here. I don't have all the answers, but something tells me that if christians, jews, and muslims agreed there was no god, poof! WORLD PEACE."
My question is" "From an atheistic point of view, why would war be wrong in the first place? If ...[text shortened]... ng? War is perfectly compatible with atheistic evolutionary "survival of the fittest"."
Atheists do not live in a moral vacuum. Morals may be relative but in our society, it is fairly plain that wars in general are not good for enhancing our lives. As social animals, we have evolved characteristics like compassion and altruism that have helped our societies develop and grow and these have given us the moral sense that war and conflict is bad.
--- Penguin.
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by josephwThen they completely misinterpret 'survival of the fittest'.
If the 'fittest' are so fit, why do they need to kill? Does evolution give the strong the right to kill the weak? The concept of the 'survival of the fittest' as a reason for war is an excuse for bullies to force their will on others.
Evolution does the job itself and does not require any intervention from us to "help it along". Doing so actually is detrimental to health and actually will weaken us.
This has been done with selective breeding (e.g. dogs), which causes many health problems.
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerWar is perfectly compatible with the Human Condition. Much of the rest of the stuff you mentioned about 'moral absolutes' and 'evolution' etc. etc. is just clutter that's obscuring the crux of it.
War is perfectly compatible with atheistic evolutionary "survival of the fittest"."
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by PenguinAs social animals, we have evolved characteristics like compassion and altruism that have helped our societies develop and grow and these have given us the moral sense that war and conflict is bad.
For one thing, you would not get world peace. Wars are started for many reasons, only some of them religious. It would be a more peaceful world but it would not be a peaceful world.
Atheists do not live in a moral vacuum. Morals may be relative but in our society, it is fairly plain that wars in general are not good for enhancing our lives. ...[text shortened]... p and grow and these have given us the moral sense that war and conflict is bad.
--- Penguin.
The only thing I don't understand is how time + matter + energy = compassion ???
11 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckermy question is "From a religious point of view, why would war be wrong in the first place? If each man is living out an insignificant part of their whole existence, as mortals without any conscious deliberation over what is right and wrong, except blindly following the decrees of some holy book, what makes war wrong? You've got a whole eternity of harp music and cloud skating to look forward to when your time here is done...short lived wars are neither here nor there! War is perfectly compatible with the desire to reach the 'happy' afterlife sooner rather than later."
A friend of mine had the following to say: "Religion dooms you atheism saves you. I'm not being philosophical here. I don't have all the answers, but something tells me that if christians, jews, and muslims agreed there was no god, poof! WORLD PEACE."
My question is" "From an atheistic point of view, why would war be wrong in the first place? If ...[text shortened]... ng? War is perfectly compatible with atheistic evolutionary "survival of the fittest"."
See what I did then?
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerLets turn the question around. Why do you not do something because it is wrong?
My question is" "From an atheistic point of view, why would war be wrong in the first place? If each man is the god of his own little universe and there are no moral absolutes, what makes war wrong? War is perfectly compatible with atheistic evolutionary "survival of the fittest"."
-Are you afraid of being punished?
-Were you just brought up that way?
-Do you believe it is 'the right thing to do' but don't really know why?
-Is it out of respect for God?
-List your own.
I do what is right mostly:
- Because I was brought up that way.
- I feel compassion.
- I see some long term benefits to cooperation.
in that order.
I do not think the existence of moral absolutes or my belief in them would make much change to my behavior.
My personal observation is that I am less likely to break my own rules than a theist because I set the rules myself. A theist tends to see the rules as someone else's and thus finds it easier to justify breaking them.
A lot of conflict in the world has to do with cultural and religious differences and divisions and religion does tend to exacerbate division and cultural differences rather reduce them.
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerI'm not being philosophical here. I don't have all the answers, but something tells me that if you eat a tomato a day, pooof! you won't get cancer.
A friend of mine had the following to say: "Religion dooms you atheism saves you. I'm not being philosophical here. I don't have all the answers, but something tells me that if christians, jews, and muslims agreed there was no god, poof! WORLD PEACE."
My question is" "From an atheistic point of view, why would war be wrong in the first place? If ...[text shortened]... ng? War is perfectly compatible with atheistic evolutionary "survival of the fittest"."
11 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2becker“....War is perfectly compatible with atheistic evolutionary "survival of the fittest"." ...”
A friend of mine had the following to say: "Religion dooms you atheism saves you. I'm not being philosophical here. I don't have all the answers, but something tells me that if christians, jews, and muslims agreed there was no god, poof! WORLD PEACE."
My question is" "From an atheistic point of view, why would war be wrong in the first place? If ...[text shortened]... ng? War is perfectly compatible with atheistic evolutionary "survival of the fittest"."
there is just so much wrong with that above statement:
atheists don't have an “evolutionary survival of the fittest" attitude any more than theists.
When we talk about “evolution”, we mean biological Evolution by default for that is the correct default scientific meaning.
The theory of biological Evolution is NOT to be confused with social Darwinism as you are doing here and social Darwinism is NOT even a scientific theory and it is also rejected and condemned by the overwhelming majority of atheists including myself.
Contrary to popular belief, Hitler was a theist and it was mainly theists that came up with this “social Darwinism” nonsense.
Evolution says NOTHING about how we SHOULD nor SHOULD NOT behave (“SHOULD” in the moral sense).
The theory of Evolution is just a theory of the origins of the diversity of species and NOTHING MORE and NOT a theory about morality nor how we should behave (morally) towards each other so it says and implies nothing about what is moral and what we should (morally) do. It has no say on the issue on human warfare and most atheists including myself, just like most theists, generally would like to discourage warfare. So, contrary to what you said above, warfare is NOT “compatible” with “ atheistic evolutionary” anything. Warfare certainly is not generally agreeable to my outlook!
Also, Evolution is not so much about "survival of the fittest" because that would be far to simplistic a statement; it is about survival of the most adapted traits. If it was simply and literally about "survival of the fittest" then, for example, the “fittest” bees in the hive would not sacrifice their lives defending their hive as to cause the inheritable traits of the hive genes to be passed on.
Contrary to popular opinion, Charles Darwin himself NEVER used the term "survival of the fittest" and for good reason; it would have been a highly misleading quote and a misrepresentation of his theory!
And in any case, how many times have theists explicitly and verbally used their religion to justify their warfare? Answer, many.
How times have theists explicitly and verbally used atheism to justify their warfare? Answer, never!
Also, what about those theists that flew planes into tall buildings? would that be due to their “atheism”?
The evidence of history shows atheism is CLEARLY not the cause of warfare.
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by josephw“...If the 'fittest' are so fit, why do they need to kill? ...”
If the 'fittest' are so fit, why do they need to kill? Does evolution give the strong the right to kill the weak? The concept of the 'survival of the fittest' as a reason for war is an excuse for bullies to force their will on others. It seems to me that the strong should defend the weak, that is if they are evolved enough to know better.
War occurs for ...[text shortened]... spiritual darkness imaginable. There will be no reason left to prevent wholesale slaughter.
they don't and evolution does not imply that they do need to kill. -see my above post to dj2becker
“...Does evolution give the strong the right to kill the weak? ...”
no, because evolution is not a theory of what is “the right” of anyone. Evolution is not a theory about morality. -see my above post to dj2becker
“...If war is caused by reason of evolution, then we are doomed. ...”
but it isn't! War is NOT “ caused by reason of evolution”. -see my above post to dj2becker
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
11 Mar 11
Originally posted by AgergWhat if a holy book were to decree "Love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you..."?
my question is "From a religious point of view, why would war be wrong in the first place? If each man is living out an insignificant part of their whole existence, as mortals without any conscious deliberation over what is right and wrong, except blindly following the decrees of some holy book, what makes war wrong? You've got a whole eternity of harp music a ...[text shortened]... he desire to reach the 'happy' afterlife sooner rather than later."
See what I did then?
11 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSorry, misprint:
“....War is perfectly compatible with atheistic evolutionary "survival of the fittest"." ...”
there is just so much wrong with that above statement:
atheists don't have an “evolutionary survival of the fittest" attitude any more than theists.
When we talk about “evolution”, we mean biological Evolution by default for that is the correct defaul atheism”?
The evidence of history shows atheism is CLEARLY not the cause of warfare.
“... How times have theists explicitly and verbally used atheism to justify their warfare? Answer, never!...”
Well, of course never! But that was ment to be:
“... How times have Atheists explicitly and verbally used atheism to justify their warfare? Answer, never!...”