(May 28, 2015 at 10:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: jorm-

Stalin killed 30 million well-evolved men, women and children who were weaker than he was. Their evolution did not help them. 

This is so close to the classic "men can't have evolved from monkeys otherwise why would there still be monkeys?"

(May 28, 2015 at 10:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: ...

Stalin killed 30 million well-evolved men, women and children who were weaker than he was. Their evolution did not help them. 

And from HIS perspective, why be good when being bad reaped such benefits?

You make yourself very clear with this. From YOUR perspective, why be reasonable when you can annoy a bunch of atheists spouting moronic nonsense?

(May 28, 2015 at 8:32 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(May 28, 2015 at 8:29 pm)Nestor Wrote: Humans were too designed to lie, it's just sometimes easy to detect, such as in the case of Christianity, for example.
Lol. Ooh that makes perfect sense. It's almost like saying, if you take my girlfriend home and fuck her that would be really uncool, but if you want to come fuck her at my house when I'm not home it's totally different.

Humans were not designed to lie because we were not designed. We evolved the ability to lie because it is useful at times.

Design is an ill-defined term when applied to mindless natural processes that produce infinitely complex mechanical structures capable of begetting conceptual objects. I think it's perfectly fine to talk about living organisms as being designed so long as we understand the causes to be ultimately misunderstood or undefined.

---

(May 28, 2015 at 8:37 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Never go Full Huggy.

(May 28, 2015 at 9:50 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(May 27, 2015 at 7:45 am)Iroscato Wrote: Evolution, baby.

As I have pointed out in a recent post, evolution is based on survival of the fittest. 

Stalin, Mao, Putin...these men have clawed their way to the top. Life is very good for them at the expense of others. Their minions are rewarded for doing their bidding including killing, torturing, etc. at the strong man's command.

Too graphic? Try politics. Or any large corporation. The same principles may be observed. 

So, have we really evolved to the point that we are no longer selfish and self-centered - putting our interests above others when it suits our purposes?

Hey Randy, serious question: do you know what "fittest" means within the context of evolution? Do you understand that it doesn't literally mean "strongest"? Do you get that it's a highly contextual term on its own, the meaning of which fluctuates depending on the realities and evolved nature of the species it's being applied to, and that when discussing humans the behaviors of your Stalins, Maos and Hitlers are directly antithetical to that particular idea of fitness?

"Fitness," refers to the particular survival niches of the species in question. An organism is fittest when it can best survive within the confines of its gene pool, and the details of that change depending on what you're talking about; the cut-throat, kill-or-be-killed ideas you're discussing here might make one the fittest if we were all sharks, but we're not. We're human beings. Our survival niche- an exceedingly successful one, I might remind you- is cooperation and social groups; we are strongest when we are together and better able to utilize our intelligence as a team. The fittest human is the one with social skills and intellect, who nurtures the group dynamic, not the one who can kill the most people, or get others to do it for him.

(May 26, 2015 at 7:29 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If there is no God, then there is no hell; and if there is no hell, then there are no ultimate, eternal repercussions, good or bad, for how we live out our mortal lives. Of course, atheists insist that people should be "good without God."

But why? If God does not exist, why be good?

This question gets boring, Randy. You believe in hell right? So let's say that there is no hell, would you still be good? I personally don't see why people would need an ultimate or eternal consequence to motivate them to be good. Why aren't the very real here and now consequences of our actions good enough to motivate you to be good? Doing good and ethical things feels good. Doing things that you personally feel are bad feels bad, and usually has it's own natural negative consequence. I took an ethics class in highschool and we discussed something I found very interesting. I don't remember who the idea came from, but it was basically that people's moral compasses tend to be shaped by their actions, rather than their actions depending on their morals. So, if you feel something is morally wrong and you continue to do it anyways, you will eventually come to rationalize that thing as being morally acceptable. I wonder how much truth there is to that. From an evolutionary stance, I would say doing what people tend to think is right, and not doing what people ten to think is wrong would be good for our species. Science isn't really my strong point though. 

The real question is, why are you good? Is it really only because you fear going to hell? And if so, does that really make you a good person? Or more like a bad person being blackmailed into making good choices by threat?

(May 28, 2015 at 11:22 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(May 28, 2015 at 10:39 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I think you're mistaken, no one said anything about him telling you, you just "know" this particular man has these thoughts, it's a hypothetical scenario.

You're missing the point.  Unless he acts or tells you, you would never just know.  So?  Do you want to know?  How the condemnation.

What part of "hypothetical" don't you understand? Jesus would know what in the heart without being told right? Pretend you had the same ability. You claim that to "Condemn a man in advance of his actions and you behave immorally yourself", Yet that's exactly what you do when you say you wouldn't trust this person around kids because of his thoughts.

(May 28, 2015 at 10:19 pm)Jenny A Wrote: And is it a sin to have small pox?

Seriously? no.
Were speaking in a medical context, sin is used in a spiritual context. A building can be "condemned", doesn't mean it's "sinful".

(May 28, 2015 at 8:47 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(May 28, 2015 at 8:43 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Probably the same reason you get all janky when you're speaking in tongues and hoping they think you're possessed by the spirit.

I would argue that you probably never witnessed anyone actually speak in tongues.

I would argue that such a spectacle would be riotously funny and that I'd point and laugh at any fool engaged in such theatrics.

(May 29, 2015 at 1:49 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(May 28, 2015 at 8:47 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I would argue that you probably never witnessed anyone actually speak in tongues.

I would argue that such a spectacle would be riotously funny and that I'd point and laugh at any fool engaged in such theatrics.

I have witnessed it and I personally found it to be kind of terrifying. 

(May 28, 2015 at 9:35 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Atheists believe that science will eventually prove that God does not exist – if it has not already done so.

I'm not going to discuss anything more with you until you stop making these ridiculous strawmen.

An atheist is not by definition a sceptic, and even a sceptic doesn't necessarily hold the view you are putting forth. In fact, I doubt you'd find many sceptics who would make such a bold statement. I wouldn't. So in fact you're utterly misrepresenting two groups at once. Also, someone who is undecided about whether God exists or not is an atheist, so they would clearly not say what you are suggesting.

It's sad to see you have to define our position for us in order to "defeat" it. You've had this explained to you at length already, as well as being spelled out on my website in great detail. I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but what can I call this except dishonesty?

You have been given extremely detailed answers by myself and others, which do address your points. You don't want to accept evolution as an answer, but that is what it comes down to in the end.

I said we are generally good. I never claimed everyone was good, or in fact that some people aren't really evil. Of course they are. Again, misrepresenting what I've said by finding an exception to a rule I was not making.

(May 28, 2015 at 10:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I hear you both, but it seems to me that while all the sheep are working together to find the pastures, there are still wolves looking to make a meal of them all. 

Somehow, the evolutionary process does not seem to have had an equal affect on all of us.

And the point of the OP is: Why should anyone be a sheep when the advantages of being a wolf are numerous?

And what would those advantages be?