Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[Nils]

@Philip

Don't make assumptions about what people do or don't know.

I certainly don't make any assumptions about what people do or don't know. I wrote "It seems that you don't understand the evolution theory." I based that on what you wrote: "But for many, especially those in positions of great power and the ability to dominate others, take a different approach - which is the Darwinian survival of the fittest - that the fittest take whatever they are able to, because it so suits their motives and desires." You were talking on a different approach, the survial of the fittest, and that such an approach includes taking what you desire. To me that's a bit misleading but what you write now is more to the point:

Sure, survival of the fittest is about successfully passing along your genes - but along with that, individually, as part of a species collectively doing so, is the individual ability to find prey and also avoid becoming it. Those that get eaten, don't do so well with their breeding plans.

Not to mention, my focus was, in a purely natural world, there is NO morality - it's not even a question. Even in the animal kingdom today, there is no morality.

You ignored what I wrote about the definition of "morality". How do you define "morality"?

Nils

[Nils]

@Paul

The problem with the superficial view of Darwinian evolution is that most people that support it are not willing to take it to its natural conclusion BUT others are.
Survival of the fittest may only mean that the must suitable traits are passed on, BUT don't ever think for a moment that it stops here in the eyes of some.

Please elaborate. What more does it mean and who doesn't stop?
Nils

[Kenny]

The problem with the superficial view of Darwinian evolution is that most people that support it are not willing to take it to its natural conclusion BUT others are.
Survival of the fittest may only mean that the must suitable traits are passed on, BUT don't ever think for a moment that it stops here in the eyes of some.

What is the superficial view of Darwinian evolution, and what is it's natural conclusion?

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

Eventually Darwinism, when taken to its natural conclusion leads to either nihilism or epicureanism.
Either you get to the view that life is just a series of chemical reactions with nothing but the drive to propagate the species ( if that) and there is no real significance to life other than that you are currently alive and then there is nothing, so life has very little meaning.
Or this is all we have, and all we are here for so live it up.
Both are self-centered wives of course and both will motivate people to do things out of self-interest.

See, if all we are is material beings driven by selfish genes then, to what degree, does anything matter since ALL is subjective to that drive to one degree or another.

While the majority of people that believe this live very well under the rules and laws of society without thinking how irrelevant those laws and rules actually are to their worldview, some take their world view to the "natural conclusion" which is obvious.

[Nils]

@Paul

Eventually Darwinism, when taken to its natural conclusion leads to either nihilism or epicureanism.
Either you get to the view that life is just a series of chemical reactions with nothing but the drive to propagate the species ( if that) and there is no real significance to life other than that you are currently alive and then there is nothing, so life has very little meaning.
Or this is all we have, and all we are here for so live it up.
Both are self-centered wives of course and both will motivate people to do things out of self-interest.

See, if all we are is material beings driven by selfish genes then, to what degree, does anything matter since ALL is subjective to that drive to one degree or another.

While the majority of people that believe this live very well under the rules and laws of society without thinking how irrelevant those laws and rules actually are to their worldview, some take their world view to the "natural conclusion" which is obvious.

I will not debate your opinion that Darwinism is not possible to join with a belief in God (as you seem to say). Many Christians acknowledge Darwinism and my reason to be an atheist is not primarily related to Darwinism.

You say that with a materialistic worldview life has no meaning and that we only act out self-interest.
That is not true, at least for me and lot of others. I can describe how and why at length if you are interested. It would be of interest to me to know how a belief in God gives you a meaning of life.
Nils

[Kenny]

Eventually Darwinism, when taken to its natural conclusion leads to either nihilism or epicureanism.
Either you get to the view that life is just a series of chemical reactions with nothing but the drive to propagate the species ( if that) and there is no real significance to life other than that you are currently alive and then there is nothing, so life has very little meaning.
Or this is all we have, and all we are here for so live it up.
Both are self-centered wives of course and both will motivate people to do things out of self-interest.

See, if all we are is material beings driven by selfish genes then, to what degree, does anything matter since ALL is subjective to that drive to one degree or another.

While the majority of people that believe this live very well under the rules and laws of society without thinking how irrelevant those laws and rules actually are to their worldview, some take their world view to the "natural conclusion" which is obvious.

When you say “Darwinism” are you referring to the Theory of Evolution? I remember a story of a woman who drowned her 5 children because she wanted them to go to Heaven and was afraid if they were raised in this corrupt world they may not make it.
IMO to assume the natural conclusion of Theory of Evolution is nihilism or epicureanism is as ridicules as assuming what this lady did is the natural conclusion of theism.

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

Eventually Darwinism, when taken to its natural conclusion leads to either nihilism or epicureanism.
Either you get to the view that life is just a series of chemical reactions with nothing but the drive to propagate the species ( if that) and there is no real significance to life other than that you are currently alive and then there is nothing, so life has very little meaning.
Or this is all we have, and all we are here for so live it up.
Both are self-centered wives of course and both will motivate people to do things out of self-interest.

See, if all we are is material beings driven by selfish genes then, to what degree, does anything matter since ALL is subjective to that drive to one degree or another.

While the majority of people that believe this live very well under the rules and laws of society without thinking how irrelevant those laws and rules actually are to their worldview, some take their world view to the "natural conclusion" which is obvious.

When you say “Darwinism” are you referring to the Theory of Evolution? I remember a story of a woman who drowned her 5 children because she wanted them to go to Heaven and was afraid if they were raised in this corrupt world they may not make it.
IMO to assume the natural conclusion of Theory of Evolution is nihilism or epicureanism is as ridicules as assuming what this lady did is the natural conclusion of theism.

Ken

If I wanted to say TOE....
I said Darwinism.

The difference between Darwinism and even the TOE and your example is that KILLING someone, outside of saving another life, is AGAINST the teachings of the bible and that the bible does NOT teach that killing someone so they can go to heaven is acceptable.
You understand the distinction, right?

[Kenny]

Eventually Darwinism, when taken to its natural conclusion leads to either nihilism or epicureanism.
Either you get to the view that life is just a series of chemical reactions with nothing but the drive to propagate the species ( if that) and there is no real significance to life other than that you are currently alive and then there is nothing, so life has very little meaning.
Or this is all we have, and all we are here for so live it up.
Both are self-centered wives of course and both will motivate people to do things out of self-interest.

See, if all we are is material beings driven by selfish genes then, to what degree, does anything matter since ALL is subjective to that drive to one degree or another.

While the majority of people that believe this live very well under the rules and laws of society without thinking how irrelevant those laws and rules actually are to their worldview, some take their world view to the "natural conclusion" which is obvious.

When you say “Darwinism” are you referring to the Theory of Evolution? I remember a story of a woman who drowned her 5 children because she wanted them to go to Heaven and was afraid if they were raised in this corrupt world they may not make it.
IMO to assume the natural conclusion of Theory of Evolution is nihilism or epicureanism is as ridicules as assuming what this lady did is the natural conclusion of theism.

Ken

If I wanted to say TOE....
I said Darwinism.

The difference between Darwinism and even the TOE and your example is that KILLING someone, outside of saving another life, is AGAINST the teachings of the bible and that the bible does NOT teach that killing someone so they can go to heaven is acceptable.
You understand the distinction, right?

[Philip]

Nils: my reason to be an atheist is not primarily related to Darwinism.

Then what IS your primary reason for your atheism?

[Kenny]

Eventually Darwinism, when taken to its natural conclusion leads to either nihilism or epicureanism.
Either you get to the view that life is just a series of chemical reactions with nothing but the drive to propagate the species ( if that) and there is no real significance to life other than that you are currently alive and then there is nothing, so life has very little meaning.
Or this is all we have, and all we are here for so live it up.
Both are self-centered wives of course and both will motivate people to do things out of self-interest.

See, if all we are is material beings driven by selfish genes then, to what degree, does anything matter since ALL is subjective to that drive to one degree or another.

While the majority of people that believe this live very well under the rules and laws of society without thinking how irrelevant those laws and rules actually are to their worldview, some take their world view to the "natural conclusion" which is obvious.

When you say “Darwinism” are you referring to the Theory of Evolution? I remember a story of a woman who drowned her 5 children because she wanted them to go to Heaven and was afraid if they were raised in this corrupt world they may not make it.
IMO to assume the natural conclusion of Theory of Evolution is nihilism or epicureanism is as ridicules as assuming what this lady did is the natural conclusion of theism.

Ken

If I wanted to say TOE....
I said Darwinism.

The difference between Darwinism and even the TOE and your example is that KILLING someone, outside of saving another life, is AGAINST the teachings of the bible and that the bible does NOT teach that killing someone so they can go to heaven is acceptable.
You understand the distinction, right?

She killed her kids so they can go to Heaven; not herself. Perhaps she was willing to accept Hell so they can get to Heaven; who knows what she was thinking. But my point is if one wants to know about the Theory of Evolution, they should get their information from someone who believes in the Theory; not somebody who is against it. If one wants to know about the Bible, they should get their information from one who believes what the Bible says; not someone who is against it. Otherwise you wind up with absurdities like the Theory of Evolution leads to Nihilism, or that following the Bible leads to what this crazy woman did to her children.

Ken

[Nils]

@Philip

Nils: my reason to be an atheist is not primarily related to Darwinism.
Then what IS your primary reason for your atheism?

Some years ago I wrote a three page long list of arguments for not believing in God. There were 24 different points grouped in three sections
1. There are no good arguments for a God
2. There is no need for a God
3. Contradictions in Christianity

Unfortunately I wrote it in Swedish but I can rewrite it in English if you want. However I think it is better to discuss that in a separate thread.

Meanwhile I am waiting for your definition of morality.

Nils

[Kurieuo]

@Philip

Nils: my reason to be an atheist is not primarily related to Darwinism.
Then what IS your primary reason for your atheism?

Some years ago I wrote a three page long list of arguments for not believing in God. There were 24 different points grouped in three sections
1. There are no good arguments for a God
2. There is no need for a God
3. Contradictions in Christianity

Unfortunately I wrote it in Swedish but I can rewrite it in English if you want. However I think it is better to discuss that in a separate thread.

And I'm sure such arguments were quite innovative having never been previously raised or adequately responded to ever.

Maybe you can take up my old challenge in a post elsewhere, to put on the table the nature of reality as you see it and your justification for such. Otherwise, I'm inclined to think your disbelief in God is more attributed to some father issues or the like, similar to Nietzche, Freud, et al.

[Hortator]

s

Nils I mentioned you in the new users thread but you didnt come to your own party >=U

as a side note we need a better way to @people when they get mentioned

[Nils]

@Hortator

s

Nils I mentioned you in the new users thread but you didnt come to your own party >=U

I have no idea of what you are talking about. Please explain.

as a side note we need a better way to @people when they get mentioned

Please explain

Nils

[Nicki]

@Hortator

s

Nils I mentioned you in the new users thread but you didnt come to your own party >=U

I have no idea of what you are talking about. Please explain.

as a side note we need a better way to @people when they get mentioned

Please explain

Nils

He mentioned you in the Please Introduce Yourself Here thread (in General etc. - where you can introduce yourself if you like) but you didn't know as you weren't being quoted or anything - hence the second remark