And the reason they havn’t died out in the millions of years of human existence?
It would be interesting. If I did.
Except to the extent that it is convenient for you to justify the belief in a Bronze-Age storm god.
And, in that, you are wrong.
Have you ever heard about game theory? It is advantageous to protect the group. That’s why you feel good when you do a good deed.
And builds a social bond that enables protection in tough times. Under your flawed and cursory understanding of evolution women would throw their babies off cliffs.
You gain a happy feeling that is worth it for you. Because evolution put the drive to help others into you.
You obviously feel good. Because you did it. The costs didn’t outweigh the benefits. The evidence is that around the world people do similar actions.
This is not however, evidence that a Bronze-Age storm god created the universe. That’s just something you want to believe… because it makes you happy, presumably because it assuages your natural fear of death.
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:436, topic:551952”]
All Communist governments have several things in common, tyranny, reppression, totalitarianism, and a suppression of religion. Each Communist government in existence has proclaimed atheism. Karl Marx, the founder of Communism himself, called religion an opiate of the masses.
The Soviet Union under both Lenin and Stalin suppressed religion. The official Communist Party (the Party that ran the Soviet Union) line was Marxist. Therefore, organized religion was ended. Church lands were stolen by the government, clergymen (as Russia was mainly Christian) were imprisoned or executed, private schools were closed, and schoolchildren were indoctrinated to believe that God did not exist.
Which part of this is not clear?
Because we aren’t all clones of our parents. There’s always new genetic combinations, which means there are always new failures.
No, which is why there’s no organized anti-Superman movement. Atheists organize poorly because they don’t have an ideology in common. It’s unlikely there would be what little organization there is if there wasn’t the impetus of self defense against the relentless attempts by the believers to impose their delusions by force on everyone.
It is presumably advantageous to be smart and or tall. Why are their dwarfs and retarded people? Not everyone is the same. Most people want to protect children. Some small amount want to rape them. There is variability.
It would really help if you had a stronger grasp of this issue.
That any of that had anything do with atheism and not communism. They acted just like any monotheism in power does; switch Communism and Marx for God and Jesus and they are positively Christian in behavior.
Who is thhis bronze age stone god? I wish I knew. But again you mistsate me to avoid having to confront the point. What scientific evidence can you present that ‘I feel good’ is the motivation behind unrewarded acts of benevolence?
Game theory is a social scienec dispcipline that theorists have applied to evolution. It prooves nothing, because it’s application is untested and unobserved. Some evidence?
Their motivation was atheism. And the damage they wrought was greater than anything ever seen before in the history of mankind.
Address the points made, rather than divert attention via unsupported attack.
Athiesm is an ideology that has developed a political foundation, it comprises national and international organisation, much like any religion. It’s advocates write books, attend conferences, lobby for political influence, arre activists within the eduxation and legal systems.
Atheism is organised. It is coordinated. It is an ideology.
Being short or tall is irrelevant, these are not moral choices, they are biological determinations.
And to the extent that there is a universal morality it is the result of biological factors. And will have the variability I mentioned. Seriously, this is obvious. You aren’t be clever by flailing around and denying reality, you’re just protecting an ideology you possess that can’t stand up to questioning.
Could I ask you to read that sentence to yourself before posting again? 
Not true even a little. Atheism is a binary condition, you are either someone that believes in a god or not. It makes no other predictions about the person.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. Stating incorrect things does not make them true. No matter how many times you do it.
The very point you are missing is that an objective morality is not achievable by ‘biological factors’. Despite your attempts, you can provide no evidence that a benevolent action or a repulsion to the rape of a 3 year old have any place in a purely naturalistic world.
Fo the former you posit a ‘feel good’ factor, that has no scientific basis.
For the latter, you suggest a paternalistic response that is easily defeated…how does this repsonse work when abhorence to such an action relates to children of people you don’t even know?
Whatever opinions you may have, thhey are not assisted by claiming someone is denying reality. Your lack of logical argument simply sets you back at each step.
Are you suggesting that the organisations, conferences, books, websites, articles etc etc run, written and operated by atheists are a figment of the imagination?
Sure it is, you are just saying it isn’t because you want evidence that God is real.
Sure I did. I explained it very reasonably. We are social animals. And being protective of children is a good thing for social animals. Other social animals do it too.
Emotions are our bodies telling our mind things. When you feel lust it compels you to take action. Does lust have a scientific basis? We’re chemical sacks, and everything you think and feel, even the piety to the god you think exists are the results of physical interactions.
We evolved in small groups. Modern society is the result of wiring for small groups writ large. We want to protect all children, because our bodies don’t know that we don’t know them. The child of a person from a town we’ve never been to triggers the same response.
Again, when you feel lust, do you have to know the target?
Ahem, I’m the one actually thinking in this conversation. You’re suggesting that there is no evolutionary basis for not wanting to fuck children based on nothing more than your assertion that there is no physical basis for it.
Look, if you want to argue evidence, there is no evidence for the Bronze-Age Storm God you worship even existing. So maybe you shouldn’t jump to use him as an answer to questions you don’t fully understand?
I’m suggesting that the organizations of Atheists (to the extent that they exist) speak for the people they contain, if even then.
A prayer group at the local YMCA doesn’t speak for all Christians.
1> There is ample evidence for an intelligent agent in the creation of the universe. Design is an excellent start, as many scientists agree.
2> The history of mankind being in small groups is hardly a reason why we would empathise with a child in Ethiopia, if not for some objective mechansim. We consider the rape of a 3 year old in Ethiopia as wrong. This is totally unrelated to any supposed biological response.
3> Lust does have a scientific basis. It relates to the need to breed, and man has been given that by his creator. But again, you move the goal posts. Lust is not a moral issue. It is biological. Try supporting your case with like for like. You’ll find you can’t.
Quite right. So Atheism and Christianity are both similar in that regard.
I just don’t see the point of that superfluous step.
You say it’s an objective moral code that we can recognize; I’ll assume for the sake of argument that you’re right. I could, at that point, go on to likewise assume there’s an intelligent agent who created us – but, assuming you’re right about the former, we don’t need to assume the latter; we can both already grant that both of us recognize the objective moral code.
And if we’ve already got that code – well, we’re done, right? Once we’ve got that ban on raping three-year-olds, it remains the same regardless of whether each of us goes on to postulate an intelligent agent.
I think you’re missing my point. I’m saying that someone who brutally rapes my three-year-old offspring can thereby hurt my odds of passing on genes – which is true regardless of whether the rapist in question brutalizes my son or my daughter; either can pass on my genes so long as he or she gets shielded from such problems.
Likewise,
Benevolence to whom? Sacrificing yourself to save two sibs and a cousin makes ***perfect *** evolutionary sense. Sacrificing yourself for the good of your offspring, likewise. Plop that down in days when you ran with a tribe of relatives who share your genes and see what set of values make good sense for lots of generations. Then work in reciprocity and see whether helping someone else can, over time, average out to net you and yours good enough benefits in exchange. And then ask yourself about the increased efficiencies that result from a division of labor and trade agreements in the context of nonaggression pacts and ask yourself what gets results.
No, it’s that a general trait – – a “feel good” factor that kicks in when you provide aid and sustenance – got terrific results generation after generation back when your ancestors mostly hung out with family members. That general trait is now playing out in radically different circumstances, but that’s hardly a disproof of how it got there in the first place.
As has been pointed out, find me someone who runs around defying the specifics of that “objective morality” – say, by raping three-year-olds – and those of us who act according to that morality will probably band together to lock him up or cut him apart. Doing so helps us in the long run, because, y’know, we tend to make little three-year-olds, and we’d like them to grow up and have babies who grow up to have babies. Folks who (a) would like to rape three-year-olds and (b) want to enjoy the benefits of a society populated largely with folks who share my morality had best learn to discipline themselves.
Well, there is what I was just saying about freaks with such urges acting on enlightened self-interest given the probable reactions of their neighbors: you at least pay lip service to the ideals me and mine are promoting, and you keep it in your pants most of the time, and so on, and so on, and so long as you pass on your genes before you get found out, then, hey, we can’t catch 'em all.
That said – well, if nothing else, indiscriminately raping folks doesn’t always fail as a reproductive strategy; a strong sex drive coupled with indifference to the victim’s pain just needs to net enough kids who have kids, over the long run, to keep on keeping on, perhaps as a recessive trait. Hemophilia hasn’t died out either.
Surely you grant that some transactions are positive-sum rather than zero-sum, and that cooperation in a context of reciprocity can sometimes be a useful approach? Surely this is a mere question of degree, and not of type?
First of all please understand I wasn’t making the argument in my summary, just summarising it.
Now…my point is that if we concur on the former (an objective moral code), then it is logical to affirm the latter (an intelligent agent). Moral objectivity is not possible without an external agent. The history of mankind is characterised with subjective morality and situational ethics. Indeed mankind fights against a tide of restraint over most practices. What was abhorred yesterday is acceptabel today and celebrated tomorrow. Yet absolute moral laws do endure.