What does atheism/skepticism have to offer?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
What is altruistic in saving and taking care of a person you need hunting ?

I stand corrected.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That is utter nonsense.

Which part?

EDIT: If you dispute the first part, you may want to check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI#Criticism_of_SETI

If the latter part, then

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_God

Originally posted by no1marauder
Stop "whining".

I'm not whining - simply pointing out the facts to stocken.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Please. Hurling insults at your opponent is not logic (even if it gets you applause from the peanut-gallery).

I'll try and explain what I meant. Here's logic.

We exist. We know that. It is therefore logical to assume that others like us could exist. (Not that they do, but that they could.)

We are not God. We have never met a God. It is therefore illogical to assume there is a God. (Not that there isn't. Just that we can't know.)

See? Logic? Nothing insulting about that.

---

That's what you could learn from no1. Simple logic. You seem to lack that from time to time. (Not that I'm perfect myself.)

Originally posted by no1marauder
I give up trying to explain to you people the difference between a logical ad hominem fallacy and an insult. It's apparently tooooooooo much for idiots/morons to grasp.

Don't worry, No1. Mine was a pure-bred ad hominem, no insult intended. 😀

Originally posted by no1marauder
I give up trying to explain to you people the difference between a logical ad hominem fallacy and an insult. It's apparently tooooooooo much for idiots/morons to grasp.

You are simply wrong. That's why. An insult is often called an Ad Hominem but of course not an Argumentum ad Hominem.

Ad Hominem Abusive:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html

marauder: "It's apparently tooooooooo much for idiots/morons to grasp ... "

Guess who is the idiot/moron ?

😀

Originally posted by stocken
I'll try and explain what I meant. Here's logic.

We exist. We know that. It is therefore logical to assume that others like us could exist. (Not that they do, but that they could.)

We are not God. We have never met a God. It is therefore illogical to assume there is a God. (Not that there isn't. Just that we can't know.)

See? Logic? Nothing insulting about that.

1. While it is logical to assume that others could exist, there is no reason to assume that they do, in fact, exist when we have no evidence or philosophical argument to do so.

2.a. It is incorrect to authoritatively state that we have never met a God - plenty of people have claimed to do so throughout history. Unless every single claim has been comprehensively debunked, such a statement is, at best, ignorance and, at worst, arrogance.
b. Even if no person has ever met God, there are still many other arguments for the existence of God.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'll dispute that on two counts:

1. Presumably the cavemen you are talking about were Cro-Magnon, which means they have the same capacity for rational thinking that we do. Is there any reason to assume that they did not think through the outcome of their actions in this case?

Further, cavemen were quite resourceful and pragmatic when it came to ...[text shortened]... If they did not think through their actions, then they were operating on instinct, not empathy.

Yes they had the same capacity for rational thinking as we do. It is however very unlikely that they had the same ability as we do today because they where never stimulated to use their brain as much as we are. If they had highly developed minds and where able to think ahead further then a lot of today’s people then why did they live in caves?

Originally posted by stocken
It isn't! Fear works too.

Even that is unnecessary. 🙂

Originally posted by ivanhoe
What is altruistic in saving and taking care of a person you need hunting ?

It is altruistic if you are doing it out of instinct, not knowing that you will benefit from it.

Originally posted by stocken
I'll try and explain what I meant. Here's logic.

We exist. We know that. It is therefore logical to assume that others like us could exist. (Not that they do, but that they could.)

We are not God. We have never met a God. It is therefore illogical to assume there is a God. (Not that there isn't. Just that we can't know.)

See? Logic? Nothing insultin ...[text shortened]... no1. Simple logic. You seem to lack that from time to time. (Not that I'm perfect myself.)

Stocken: "That's what you could learn from no1. Simple logic."

We have an expression here at RHP: "maraudian logic".

Guess why this term was coined ? 😵

The answer can be found in the difference between "simple" and "simplistic". Legalistic and formal reasoning also has something to do with it. Enjoy ......

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
Yes they had the same capacity for rational thinking as we do. It is however very unlikely that they had the same ability as we do today because they where never stimulated to use their brain as much as we are. If they had highly developed minds and where able to think ahead further then a lot of today’s people then why did they live in caves?

If they had highly developed minds and where able to think ahead further then a lot of today’s people then why did they live in caves?

Technologically inferior? Still in the wood-age? There are myriads of reasons why they would live in caves -- and still have the logical capacity of modern man.

Edit: Yeah, yeah. Before some SA (smart **$) points it out -- its actually the stone-age.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
It is altruistic if you are doing it out of instinct, not knowing that you will benefit from it.

This is beyond me ..... sorry.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
It is altruistic if you are doing it out of instinct, not knowing that you will benefit from it.

I think you are completely on the wrong track here. Our instinct is (almost) always towards self-preservation -- the complete opposite of altruism.

Originally posted by Halitose
I think you are completely on the wrong track here. Our instinct is (almost) always towards self-preservation -- the complete opposite of altruism.

Really???? Take a gander at this article http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Thompson.pdf

For LH take a look at Part IV esp. pp. 5-7 which discuss empathy in apes and other social animals. Guess they learned it from their religion.😛

It's not surprising that "Christians", who have a low opinion of mankind in general,. deny that people do things all the time based on altruism and empathy. Their loathing for their fellow man blinds them to what happens around them every day.