Why I'm an Atheist

[Arm0r]

pfft, survival of the fittest applied today?   So I guess if a weak and sickly individual pulls a 45 cal out and blows away the "more fit" individual then I guess the sickly and weak individual won out, didn't he?    It's easy to generalize shit and say "that's how it is", you take zero account of other determining factors that matter today that didn't exist in more primitive times (which I think is what haunt was getting at)....come to think of it, I haven't seen you actually debate anything said yet, you obviously have your own set of views and "debating" isn't in your agenda.   Focalor had you pegged pretty well.

 

[quadz]

As I stated in a previous post, a true atheist will tend to base their ideas on contemporary scientific thought (for lack of anything better).

Contemporary scientific thought does not indicate the existence of a benevolent (or otherwise) god. Therefore, as an atheist, I currently conclude that there is no god - benevolent or otherwise - looking out for us.

This may seem a subtle point, but as Richard Dawkins spent a page or two explaining in The God Delusion - from a purely scientific perspective it's not possible to reach a completely atheistic position.  Since science can't prove a negative--i.e. can't prove the absence of a god--there's simply no scientific basis to claim the nonexistence of god as a fact.


Regards,

[|iR|Focalor]

Which children get bullied & teased at school? The weak ones, the disabled ones, and those who look different.

Which young adults fail to find a mate? The weak, sick, and disabled ones, and those who don't conform to the current standards of physical attractiveness.

Which mature adults fail to prosper in their careers, goals, and ambitions? The ones who don't conform to the social ideals of the wider community (the herd).

Conformity is NOT the basis of evolution. Conformity equals stagnation, not progress. Transcending past conformity, change, becoming different, that's where evolution occurs. Conformity in and of itself IS a weakness.

For more spoonfeeding on this subject, I suggest you read any book by Ayn Rand.

I haven't seen you actually debate anything said yet, you obviously have your own set of views and "debating" isn't in your agenda.   Focalor had you pegged pretty well.

 

[QwazyWabbit]

Ayn Rand was simply NOT correct. She was strongly influenced by her experience as a child in the Soviet Union and her philosophy is suspect.

She was also influential over another famous influential person by the name of Alan Greenspan, who completely ignored the warnings about the housing bubble and the criminal activities of "selling risk" in the form of CDOs and stood by and did nothing because in the Ayn Rand tradition, he believed that "the market is smart" and the market will correct. He has now admitted he was wrong. So nice to know that. Now.

Of course, the market - and the regulators - have done nothing to correct or kill off the factors that brought about the systemic failure of the economy and Wall Street bankers are raking in the profits and the bonuses. They have learned nothing... except that the taxpayers are suckers.

[quadz]

She was also influential over another famous influential person by the name of Alan Greenspan, who completely ignored the warnings about the housing bubble and the criminal activities of "selling risk" in the form of CDS and stood by and did nothing because in the Ayn Rand tradition, he believed that "the market is smart" and the market will correct. He has now admitted he was wrong. So nice to know that. Now.

On a related note...

[Tubby]

Haunted, Reaper, and Focalor, have any of you guys heard of 'Occam's razor'?

Occam's Razor is a principle which asserts that "the simplest explanation is most often the correct one".

You guys are throwing books, references, theories and so forth at me. All I'm doing is asking you to look at the real world.

It can't be simpler: Ask yourselves - would you rather be a healthy good-looking hunk or a sickly weak guy? I guarentee that you would all rather be the hunk. Why? Because the hunk gets more women. And at the end of the day that's all we're really here for - to get women (and for women to get men) in order to propagate the species.

Haunted, of course there will always be instances where the so-called 'weak' dominates the strong, but these will be few and far between. Nevertheless, they will provide some necessary variety to the gene pool - along with chance genetic mutations - as Focalor alluded to.

But all this stuff about the nerd buying a gun and blowing away the hunks - or the bully going to jail - is moot: Guns and jails are artificial constructs which our genes don't give a fuck about. They're just as irrelevant to the real purpose of life as is the concept of a god.

[Arm0r]

I haven't seen you actually debate anything said yet, you obviously have your own set of views and "debating" isn't in your agenda.   Focalor had you pegged pretty well.

 

[Tubby]

I haven't seen you actually debate anything said yet, you obviously have your own set of views and "debating" isn't in your agenda.   Focalor had you pegged pretty well.

 

What do you mean? Debate is taking one or the other side of an argument (the affirmitive or the negative).

The argument here is atheism, and I'm taking the affirmitive side...

[|iR|Focalor]

Ayn Rand was simply NOT correct. She was strongly influenced by her experience as a child in the Soviet Union and her philosophy is suspect.

She was also influential over another famous influential person by the name of Alan Greenspan,...

Yeah, we'll stop there. Were talking about evolution in relation to individuality, not politics or economics. Furthermore, just because one jew in power wants to name drop when the shit hits the fan, that does not transfer the guilt or responsibility to another party.

Moving on now...

You guys are throwing books, references, theories and so forth at me. All I'm doing is asking you to look at the real world.

It can't be simpler: Ask yourselves - would you rather be a healthy good-looking hunk or a sickly weak guy? I guarentee that you would all rather be the hunk. Why? Because the hunk gets more women. And at the end of the day that's all we're really here for - to get women (and for women to get men) in order to propagate the species.

Haunted, of course there will always be instances where the so-called 'weak' dominates the strong, but these will be few and far between. Nevertheless, they will provide some necessary variety to the gene pool - along with chance genetic mutations - as Focalor alluded to.

It can't be simpler? Yes it can, let me show you how:

"The strong rule the weak, but the clever rule over all." -Boyd Rice
"If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten." -George Carlin

Intelligence and cunning are what have made the human animal the most deadly of all species living on this planet. Without it, we'd all still be living in caves and fingerpainting with doo doo. The computer in front of you is evidence of how the clever run shit around this mud ball called earth. Where humans can't physically evolve to adapt, we can use our intelligence to overcome adversity.

So given the choice... I'd choose to be sickly and weak but highly intelligent as opposed to strong and good looking and dumber than a fencepost.

[Tubby]

FFS, if you guys need any more 'evidence' of the primal role of Darwinian evolution / natural selection, just consider this:

You all play Quake 2, right? So, what's Quake 2 about if not 'survival of the fittest'? Just like nearly any other computer game, sport, board game, classroom or workplace assignment, beauty pagent, gym class, college exam, TV reality show, spelling bee, job interview, etc... It's all about Survival of the Fittest.

It's everywhere, all around us, every day.

Fuck. It even happens in the Christian Church where only the 'fittest' priests get to become cardinals, and only the 'fittest' cardinals get to become bishops, and only the 'fittest' bishop gets to become pope.... or whichever way around they do it.

How hard is it to see that survival of the fittest is the Darwinian name of the game we all call 'life'?

[|iR|Focalor]

FFS, if you guys need any more 'evidence' of the primal role of Darwinian evolution / natural selection, just consider this:

You all play Quake 2, right? So, what's Quake 2 about if not 'survival of the fittest'? Just like nearly any other computer game, sport, board game, classroom or workplace assignment, beauty pagent, gym class, college exam, TV reality show, spelling bee, job interview, etc....

Fuck. It even happens in the Christian Church where only the 'fittest' priests get to become cardinals, and only the 'fittest' cardinals get to become bishops, and only the 'fittest' bishop gets to become pope.... or whichever way around they do it.

How hard is that to see and accept?

Your examples prove my point. Usually the smartest methodical player wins out.

And in the Catholic church, they don't promote based on good looks. It's like any other corporate structure where the game becomes more about who you can befriend and who are your allies. Manipulation and cunning can be far more effective weapons to wield than any one gun in your own hand.

The weak wish they were strong so that they'd have power. The strong oppose their will on the weak by brute force. The clever laugh at them both because he knows that strength without leadership and wisdom is still weakness.

[Arm0r]

I haven't seen you actually debate anything said yet, you obviously have your own set of views and "debating" isn't in your agenda.   Focalor had you pegged pretty well.

 

What do you mean? Debate is taking one or the other side of an argument (the affirmitive or the negative).

The argument here is atheism, and I'm taking the affirmitive side...

Atheism is a fine standpoint, go ahead and have it.  It's when you try to make it a fucking podium that I have problems with it, you have no "facts" to work from so why act as if you're speaking law when you're speaking opinion?

[Tubby]

You guys are throwing books, references, theories and so forth at me. All I'm doing is asking you to look at the real world.

It can't be simpler: Ask yourselves - would you rather be a healthy good-looking hunk or a sickly weak guy? I guarentee that you would all rather be the hunk. Why? Because the hunk gets more women. And at the end of the day that's all we're really here for - to get women (and for women to get men) in order to propagate the species.

Haunted, of course there will always be instances where the so-called 'weak' dominates the strong, but these will be few and far between. Nevertheless, they will provide some necessary variety to the gene pool - along with chance genetic mutations - as Focalor alluded to.

It can't be simpler? Yes it can, let me show you how:

"The strong rule the weak, but the clever rule over all." -Boyd Rice
"If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten." -George Carlin

Intelligence and cunning are what have made the human animal the most deadly of all species living on this planet. Without it, we'd all still be living in caves and fingerpainting with doo doo. The computer in front of you is evidence of how the clever run shit around this mud ball called earth. Where humans can't physically evolve to adapt, we can use our intelligence to overcome adversity.

So given the choice... I'd choose to be sickly and weak but highly intelligent as opposed to strong and good looking and dumber than a fencepost.

Foc, if you're highly intelligent (but physically weak & sickly), that's still an evolutionary advantage. That's why you get so many beautiful young women marrying old and ugly Hollywood millionaires  

Like you say, their intellectual advantage overcomes their physical disadvantage.

All you're doing is further proving my point that a woman inherently wants to be with a man who is somehow 'better' than others of his species - whether it be in the physical or the intellectual arena.

Being with such a man will provide the woman with the opportunity to pass superior genes to her offspring - whether those genes code for physical or intellectual superiority.

[Tubby]

Atheism is a fine standpoint, go ahead and have it.  It's when you try to make it a fucking podium that I have problems with it, you have no "facts" to work from so why act as if you're speaking law when you're speaking opinion?

I know I have no 'facts'. Does anybody? That's why discussing this issue is so interesting... Besides, if everyone shyed away from discussing things they don't have all the 'facts' about, we would still be "living in caves and finger-painting with doo doo", as Focalor so eloquently put it.

For example, Einstein couldn't prove E=Mc2 as a "fact", but look how far his belief got him anyway...

[|iR|Focalor]

Eh. Time to jump ship on this thread. Buh bye.