Religion dooms you atheism saves you

Originally posted by dj2becker
A friend of mine had the following to say: "Religion dooms you atheism saves you. I'm not being philosophical here. I don't have all the answers, but something tells me that if christians, jews, and muslims agreed there was no god, poof! WORLD PEACE."

My question is" "From an atheistic point of view, why would war be wrong in the first place? If ...[text shortened]... ng? War is perfectly compatible with atheistic evolutionary "survival of the fittest"."

theres and episode of south park about that, everyone ends up fighting about somthing else silly. i dont dobut that that would probably happen, if we learn to accept eachothers views however...

also why does god have to give us our morals, why cant we develop our own? Just because there are no absoulutes doesnt mean there are no morals.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This fact of course essentially disproves all the creationists who claim that mutations cannot lead to beneficial traits. If natural selection couldn't work, neither would selective breeding.

good point (and one that I missed)

Originally posted by twhitehead
This fact of course essentially disproves all the creationists who claim that mutations cannot lead to beneficial traits. If natural selection couldn't work, neither would selective breeding.

What creationist has ever said that mutations cannot lead to beneficial traits?
I know I've never said it, I have said that it is easier to alter a functional complex
system that is all ready in place than build one from scratch without a plan, a
purpose, or design.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am somewhat skeptical that they do it by decree, or that if they do, that it is actual love.

Why?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
What creationist has ever said that mutations cannot lead to beneficial traits?

Quite a large number. It is a popular claim on this forum.

I know I've never said it, I have said that it is easier to alter a functional complex
system that is all ready in place than build one from scratch without a plan, a
purpose, or design.
Kelly
I do recall you claiming something to that effect. It might not have been you, but I thought it was. Something to do with mosquitoes if I recall.

Originally posted by KellyJay
What creationist has ever said that mutations cannot lead to beneficial traits?
Kelly

This seems really close:

Thread 108092
Originally posted by KellyJay
Natural selection doesn't design, it is an after the fact filter in the
process! You have the book, something in the book changes due
to a random mutation, and the worse the effect on the books story
or if it turns the current words into some meaningless mess of text
the more likely natural selection will remove the book from the
gene pool. The notion that it helps evolution build into the book
good words that go along with the story line is preposterous.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This seems really close:

Thread 108092
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]Natural selection doesn't design, it is an after the fact filter in the
process! You have the book, something in the book changes due
to a random mutation, and the worse the effect on the books story
or if it turns the current words into some meaningles ...[text shortened]... lution build into the book
good words that go along with the story line is preposterous. [/b]

You are reaching here.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are reaching here.
Kelly

How so?

I really cant see what else this sentence could mean:
The notion that it helps evolution build into the book
good words that go along with the story line is preposterous.
Surely you are claiming that mutations cannot lead to good attributes. You seem to be calling that possibility 'preposterous'.
If I am mistaken, then what were you trying to say?

Originally posted by twhitehead
How so?

I really cant see what else this sentence could mean:
[b]The notion that it helps evolution build into the book
good words that go along with the story line is preposterous.
Surely you are claiming that mutations cannot lead to good attributes. You seem to be calling that possibility 'preposterous'.
If I am mistaken, then what were you trying to say?[/b]

Yes, your point? Simply what I said, you are not going to convince me that will
happen by random chance, driven by natural selection. A good attribute is very
broad, it could be a comma in the right place, a single word properly spelled,
that is a far cry than a chapter being written.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, your point? Simply what I said, you are not going to convince me that will
happen by random chance, driven by natural selection. A good attribute is very
broad, it could be a comma in the right place, a single word properly spelled,
that is a far cry than a chapter being written.
Kelly

As always, you are being very vague. It is not at all clear what you are claiming and what you are not claiming.
Do you accept that mutations can be beneficial?
Do you accept that selective breeding can lead to a significant number of beneficial changes?
If so, then what are you actually claiming? The book analogy is just to vague.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As always, you are being very vague. It is not at all clear what you are claiming and what you are not claiming.
Do you accept that mutations can be beneficial?
Do you accept that selective breeding can lead to a significant number of beneficial changes?
If so, then what are you actually claiming? The book analogy is just to vague.

Anyone who seriously thinks that there is no such thing as beneficial mutations should read up on Richard Lenski's long term e-coli experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Originally posted by dj2becker
A friend of mine had the following to say: "Religion dooms you atheism saves you. I'm not being philosophical here. I don't have all the answers, but something tells me that if christians, jews, and muslims agreed there was no god, poof! WORLD PEACE."

...

No.

Greed and power are irrespective of religion. World peace would not be the natural state of humankind if there were religions or not.

Humans will grasp at any reason they wish to exterminate one another.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
This argument is often thrown up in one form or another by theists attempting to denigrate the atheist position. In fact it is, of course, entirely specious as well as rather patronising and simplistic. These religions do not create human morality, they simply attempt to create an explanation for it's pre-existence (although they may also attempt to enshrine, extend, amend or even pervert it).

How does atheism explain your 'pre-existing' human morality?

Originally posted by dj2becker
How does atheism explain your 'pre-existing' human morality?

Atheism is a lack of belief. It does not, by definition, explain anything nor try to, nor need to.
Atheists, may have explanations for things, but atheism doesn't.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Atheism is a lack of belief. It does not, by definition, explain anything nor try to, nor need to.
Atheists, may have explanations for things, but atheism doesn't.

Atheism is a lack of belief. It does not, by definition, explain anything nor try to, nor need to.

So a lack of belief in God does not equal a belief in the non-existance of God? Do atheists not believe in atheism?

Atheists, may have explanations for things, but atheism doesn't.

So their explanations are based on what? NOT atheism?