Quote:Instead Paradaic jumped in with his "animals" .No, you did that. Padriac mentioned once that if we had global atheism, humans would still be animals with a powerful survival instinct. This is true. Global atheism wouldn't change our genetic predisposition and natural instincts any more than global theism would. It was you who decided to make an issue out of it by attempting to refute his point with an unscientific claim.
Quote:
I feel a hostile undertone in your reply and I don't understand why.It's not your style of debating with others.
You didn't notice or bother that I was called directly an ignorant which seems to me to contravene the rules.
I don't comply about that but wat bothers me is the irrelevance of the discussion which links a social problem as birth control in our time with general considerations about the evolution of animals .
None of the replies to my initial post, which underlined the real social role of atheism in birth control as opposite to the religious tendencies of all abrahamig religions and especially of Islam against birth control, has treated this aspect and instead waived to theoretic biological problems.
In my opinion we see here that atheism is more than a philosophical topic in the high spheres of academic debate but a practical social topi who's importance is going to grow even more in the years to come as social forces will increase the pressure for institutionalizing population control
Quote:As you can see from my response above (concerning self-awareness being a bad mutation), I think there is certainly a connection to be made between population control and evolutionary biology.[/quote]
As I said above the connection between the two issues is irrelevant because you connect an actual social topic with a process which continues for millions of years.
