What does atheism/skepticism have to offer?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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 co ...[text shortened]... en if no person has ever met God, there are still many other arguments for the existence of God.

Okeeeeeey?

Let me put it this way. I know that I exist, simply because I am self-aware. So, I don't have to take it on faith that I exist.

Even if I were to "meet" God, I couldn't be as sure about that as I am of my own existence.

Putting this into relation, tells me that the probability of something else like me existing is higher than something else entirely. Of course, that's when viewed from my own self. There's still very much a chance that I am the minority and that there are plenty of Gods out there debating whether or not their creation actually exists.

That would be a good one, though. Wouldn't it? 🙂

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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 co ...[text shortened]... en if no person has ever met God, there are still many other arguments for the existence of God.

Amazing. I would think the person who claimed he met and chatted with an all-powerful being that hardly anybody else sees would be the one who is "arrogant" not the one who says he's full of crap. A lot of people claim that they have seen aliens, too, so you are being "ignorant and arrogant" to say there is no evidence for their existence, aren't you?

EDIT: You'll find all kinds of things that, according to LH's logic, we'd be "ignorant and arrogant" not to believe in on this site. http://www.thelivingweb.net/ufos.html

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]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.[/b]

Sure ther is a change that these guys where as smart as us today but I highly doubt it.

So if altruistic behaviour has nothing to do with evolution then why does a mother take care of her child??? She has nothing to gain by collecting food for her child but she still does it out of her mother's instinct. - Its all evolution.

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.

Sometimes out insticts are towards preservation of our kind instead of our self...

Originally posted by no1marauder
Amazing. I would think the person who claimed he met and chatted with an all-powerful being that hardly anybody else sees would be the one who is "arrogant" not the one who says he's full of crap. A lot of people claim that they have seen aliens, too, so you are being "ignorant and arrogant" to say there is no evidence for their existence, aren't you?

t and arrogant" not to believe in on this site. http://www.thelivingweb.net/ufos.html

Trying to confuse the issue again, marauder, by changing the subject and laying smokescreens ?

LH: "Let's take a concrete case study: I come across a hungry, homeless man while returning from the supermarket. From the philosophical viewpoint you've been arguing for, what is my justification for giving this man some food?"

marauder: "It's called empathy, a common trait in more intelligent, social animals. It serves an evolutionary purpose."

LH: "What evolutionary purpose?"

marauder: "Survival. Individual human beings wouldn't have survived very long; they needed to operate in groups.

(the significance of this statement regarding the beggar case study escapes me)

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Trying to confuse the issue again, marauder, by changing the subject and laying smokescreens ?

I know you don't understand how to debate, but my post is a direct response to LH's argument in his last post. Read them both and figure out why.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I know you don't understand how to debate, but my post is a direct response to LH's argument in his last post. Read them both and figure out why.

You are confusing the issue, marauder. You're trying to divert the attention from what you said earlier. (see my above post and your non-sensical responses)

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You are confusing the issue, marauder. You're trying to divert the attention from what you said earlier. (see my above post and your non-sensical responses)

Will you go away?? Every goddamn thread I post in, I have to put up with this personal vendetta crap from you. I'm posting on the topic and you're not. Get lost, spammer.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Will you go away?? Every goddamn thread I post in, I have to put up with this personal vendetta crap from you. I'm posting on the topic and you're not. Get lost, spammer.

ha ha ha

It would seem so from an outsiders point of view, as well. You two really shouldn't be in the same thread. Although, it is somewhat entertaining.

😵

Originally posted by no1marauder
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 ...[text shortened]... pathy. Their loathing for their fellow man blinds them to what happens around them every day.

It's not surprising that with such a low opinion of "Christians" you would always blow everything out of proportion, twist their words to everything they didn't mean and club them all together into one pitiful bunch of inarticulate morons who can't differentiate between their thumbs and their d***s.

That said, it is debatable whether animals react solely to instinct or whether they have a limited will. I lean towards the latter -- a will which can (be it rare) choose between the more altruistic of an animal's drives.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Trying to confuse the issue again, marauder, by changing the subject and laying smokescreens ?

LH: "Let's take a concrete case study: I come across a hungry, homeless man while returning from the supermarket. From the philosophical viewpoint you've been arguing for, what is my justification for giving this man some food?"

marauder: "It's called empathy ...[text shortened]... s.

(the significance of this statement regarding the beggar case study escapes me)

Missed your edit. Did you bother to look at the link I gave regarding "Empathy"? Probably not. Anyway, it suggests that the trait is a biological one and is common to many mammalian species. It strikes me that the more emphatic and caring a group was toward its fellow members, the longer the members would live and breed. There are cases of early homo sapiens fossils having evidence of terrible wounds that must have incapacitated the human for substantial periods, yet the wounds are shown to have healed (compound fractures with new bone grown over, for example). A "dog eat dog" (though dogs certainly show empathy as anyone who ever owned one knows) mentality would have simply left the incapacitated member to die, as he surely would be of no help in gathering food or hunting for a long period. In fact, he would have been a severe burden on a small group living on subsistence level. The most logical explanation for such behavior is an emphatic reaction that is still part of our nature.

Originally posted by Halitose
It's not surprising that with such a low opinion of "Christians" you would always blow everything out of proportion, twist their words to everything they didn't mean and club them all together into one pitiful bunch of inarticulate morons who can't differentiate between their thumbs and their d***s.

That said, it is debatable whether animals reac ...[text shortened]... -- a will which can (be it rare) choose between the more altruistic of an animal's drives.

Really??? I would say the "Christians" (remember those quotes) on this site are in almost total agreement that Man's nature is "vile" "evil" "degraded" etc etc etc etc; they've said it many times. Ask Coletti or KellyJay or Blindfaith or RBHILL etc. etc. etc. Do you disagree?? Of course, the reality that we are emphatic, social animals who seem pre-programmed to caring about our fellow man throws a crimp into that argument.

Originally posted by stocken
Compassion, thus, along with all the moral laws that I accept, is built on the assumption that we should preserve life (for our own good if nothing else).

So the reason lying is wrong is because it endangers life?

And fraud? Stealing?

Even if your theory could be made to work, it does not address the question why life is worth preserving.

Is the answer not: "It just is!"

Originally posted by no1marauder
Missed your edit. Did you bother to look at the link I gave regarding "Empathy"? Probably not. Anyway, it suggests that the trait is a biological one and is common to many mammalian species. It strikes me that the more emphatic and caring a group was toward its fellow members, the longer the members would live and breed. There are cases of early homo sap ...[text shortened]... ical explanation for such behavior is an emphatic reaction that is still part of our nature.

.... and where does the beggar come in ? Do dogs give alms ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Really??? I would say the "Christians" (remember those quotes) on this site are in almost total agreement that Man's nature is "vile" "evil" "degraded" etc etc etc etc; they've said it many times. Ask Coletti or KellyJay or Blindfaith or RBHILL etc. etc. etc. Do you disagree?? Of course, the reality that we are emphatic, social animals who seem pre-programmed to caring about our fellow man throws a crimp into that argument.

It's about time you become a bit more empathic, marauder. According to your own theory characters like you are causing the downfall of human kind.