11 Mar 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerThis argument is often thrown up in one form or another by theists attempting to denigrate the atheist position. In fact it is, of course, entirely specious as well as rather patronising and simplistic. These religions do not create human morality, they simply attempt to create an explanation for it's pre-existence (although they may also attempt to enshrine, extend, amend or even pervert it).
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"."
12 Mar 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo, I am saying that love by command is not love - especially when the command is followed only due to coercion.
Are you saying that no Christians ever follow any commands in the Bible?
There are plenty of Christians who do love their neighbor and plenty (though fewer) who love their enemy. But I doubt that any of them do so purely because they were commanded to.
12 Mar 11
There was a quote by William Burroughs that I put up here ,(on some thread), awhile ago. I wish I could remember it , but for the life of me... Anyway it went a bit like this.
Our universe seems to be one that is war orientated. There may be other universes but we cant escape this fact.
Something like that. I think I threw it at Robbie Carrobie at the time.
It is still one of the most enduring comments I've come acorss.
12 Mar 11
Originally posted by lauseyIf any life form cannot make it in the environment if finds itself in man made or not;
Then they completely misinterpret 'survival of the fittest'.
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.
it will either move on or die. Humans are part of the equation you cannot suggest
our part is any more or less important the weather.
Kelly
13 Mar 11
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton“...Then they completely misinterpret 'survival of the fittest'. ...”
“....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 ...[text shortened]... atheism”?
The evidence of history shows atheism is CLEARLY not the cause of warfare.
Actually, they don't “misinterpret” 'survival of the fittest' because 'survival of the fittest' was never part of the theory of evolution!
Repeating a quote I said in this thread:
“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! “
13 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay“...If any life form cannot make it in the environment if finds itself in man made or not; ...”
If any life form cannot make it in the environment if finds itself in man made or not;
it will either move on or die. Humans are part of the equation you cannot suggest
our part is any more or less important the weather.
Kelly
that quote has “if...” but then no “..then...” and, instead, it is followed just by another “...if...” !
This breaks the rules of grammar and I for one find it impossible to decipher its meaning.
“...Humans are part of the equation you cannot suggest
our part is any more or less important the weather. ...”
what particular “equation” are you referring to? He was talking about evolution but we are just one outcome of evolution and not its cause so I doubt that you mean “evolution” by “equation”.
13 Mar 11
Originally posted by lauseyActually selective breading does not guarantee worse health, it can be used to result in better health (and often is). Although evolution does not require intervention to help it along, selective breading does result in faster evolution and can be a useful tool - as humans, we use it all the time, nearly every food we eat is a result of selective breading.
Then they completely misinterpret 'survival of the fittest'.
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.
14 Mar 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadFair point. Although a thorough knowledge of genetics is required to understand the consequences of selectively breeding.
Actually selective breading does not guarantee worse health, it can be used to result in better health (and often is). Although evolution does not require intervention to help it along, selective breading does result in faster evolution and can be a useful tool - as humans, we use it all the time, nearly every food we eat is a result of selective breading.
14 Mar 11
Originally posted by lauseyQuite true, but that does not stop us from selectively breeding to our advantage even when we don't know the full consequences. Most of the time, the only consequence that matters to us is the characteristic we are looking for (and thus selecting for).
Fair point. Although a thorough knowledge of genetics is required to understand the consequences of selectively breeding.
Of course this in no way justifies war as a means of selective breeding, nor do I believe selectively breeding humans is a good idea without a lot more careful thought.
My biggest concerns would be:
1. The fact that it would almost certainly be abused by those in charge.
2. If carried out on a large scale, it could be seen as unfair to those whose genes are not considered 'desirable'.
However, 1. is my biggest concern and if it could be overcome, I see no reason why for example those people who cannot have children naturally and have them by artificial means, cannot 'selectively breed' their offspring for certain characteristics.
14 Mar 11
2 edits
Originally posted by lauseySelective breeding has been done for thousands of years without any real understanding of genetics and yet people somehow worked out that the main consequence of selective breeding is that if you keep selecting for a particular trait each generation then you will slowly get more of that trait.
Fair point. Although a thorough knowledge of genetics is required to understand the consequences of selectively breeding.
Of course, there are occasionally unforeseen consequences.
14 Mar 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThis fact of course essentially disproves all the creationists who claim that mutations cannot lead to beneficial traits. If natural selection couldn't work, neither would selective breeding.
Selective breeding has been done for thousands of years without any real understanding of genetics and yet people somehow worked out that the main consequence of selective breeding is that if you keep selecting for a particular trait each generation then you will slowly get more of that trait.
Of course, there are occasionally unforeseen consequences.