^I suppose there might be some truth in your caveman statement, although Im not really sure since back in those days there was no such thing as monogamy. Females were just sperm receptacles, and there were plenty of them, so I'm pretty sure anyone could have found any number of ways to reproduce if they were so inclined. Only in certain specific situations would men have competed in that way...to the point of killing off another strong provider for the group. At least, thats my theory. I haven't done any kind of research to verify what I've said. I can only assume that primitive humans, being social creatures, would have valued their groups collective strength over their own individual interests.
However killing someone randomly is objectively wrong. Even from just an evolutionary standpoint.
The moral authority atheists answer to is ourselves. Are you one that believes there can be no morality without god?
I just don't think there is morality with or without God. The universe does run under a set of rules/laws/logic, and i base my morality on those since that's all i have been given. However in terms of an objective moral law, i've yet to see anyone come up with something that didn't have a big hole in it.
I don't think killing someone randomly is wrong, perhaps i feel that way but that's subjective. I can't think of any possible way to objectively judge an action like that, is it messing up evolution? well we don't know the path of evolution so how can we say? is it causing more suffering in the world than happiness? perhaps, but it's impossible to calculate such a thing.
On what other possible basis can we judge an action objectively? we have no point of reference. If you want to go the Golden rule route (do unto others as you would blah blah) then the sadomasochist example messes that one up. Kant's categorical imperative and idea of duty gets close to an objective framework for morality but misses when compared to utilitarianism and for the simple fact that not all people act rationally at all times, as we are still part animal, not pure rationality.
If you look into chimpanzees and monkeys, they kill each other for no particular reason. While every other animal kills for sustenance or reproductive rights/territory. Humans will just plain old kill one another for no reason at all. I can't see an argument that can be made that says one should act in such a way for the betterment and security of the species, it's not a law that the strongest/smartest survive (survival of the fittest), it tends to happen but there are outliers.
@rickolasnice: what was bullshit about what i said? that people need religion? You can pass what i say off as the ramblings of a crazy person but if my arguments are logical and sound, then the conclusions are as well. And your objection to such an argument is, of course, 'bullsit.' Not a very strong defense.
Given your views, i don't even think you'd disagree with that argument, perhaps you interpreted it wrong. If the mass of sheep don't believe there is something more to life, they will indeed say fuck it and enact massive social change. That is the power of religion and why it is a tool of oppression or has been used as one. That's exactly why Marx called religion, the opiate of the masses. Shit.
definitely agree with Foreigner, most Atheists are just rejecting personified versions of God, that's great and all but many Theists do not believe in that shit either.
Smug Atheists are the worst, you cannot prove there is a God or not, go ahead and fucking try because no one else has been able to.
I hope Yahweh strikes Richard Dawkins down. Not that i hate him just that his words have influenced so many fucking morons who just repeat his bullshit without even understanding it. He's the timothy leary of Atheism.
@8ball: my psychotic breaks have only strengthened my view that we are all intricately connected and that we are God. You cannot put your experiences into words because those experiences are ineffable, to experience that singularity or oneness as Foreigner describes is ineffable but just because we can't speak about it, doesn't mean we can't feel it and doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist either. Did you not feel that connection during psychosis?
atheists don't believe, they think
i'm strongly atheist, and have experienced quite a few things that biased people could interpret as a divine presence.
but due to my (maybe illusory) absence of bias, i think i was able to interpret the information of those experiences for what it was and not what i wanted it to be. and this convinced me that there is no creator of the universe. and even less an omnipotent, benevolent one.
well, i'm mentioning these experiences to show that i am not close minded (i've experienced first-hand that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively), but mere logic already explains how ridiculous the idea of an omnipotent creator is.
see that's some smug bullshit there. How does logic explain how ridiculous the idea of an omnipotent creator is? What is the argument for that? and keep in mind the rules/laws of logic have changed and are subject to future change as well. And even if so, that's just for an omnipotent creator, you have ruled out one possibility, which most people don't even cling to.
If Atheists think rather than believe then why do they resort to fallacious reasoning or 'sophistry?'
