Logical discussion.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Yes, it is an opinion, and of course I'm not talking about physical strength. Things that some people do that are considered "strong" are not viewed as such by everyone. Though you're right, just living is enough for evolution, which is pretty dissapointing. These days, people don't die from being weak, they die from unfortunate accidents or poor living situations (i.e. starvation in Africa). If two people of equal generic merit were each placed in 1st and 3rd world countries, of course the man in the 3rd world country is more likely to die. So, strength (however you may view it) is not the only factor in deciding life and death.
Fortier
The problem with your example is that the environments are completely different. If you have two people, and they each have equal genetic merit with respect to their environment, then both of them are going to survive. Now, if you have one person who's genetics are suited for one type of environment, and you place him in a completely different environement, then he most likely will not survive.
People who die before reproducing, as far as evolution is concerned, are weak. If you die before reproducing, that just confirms that your genetic makeup was not well suited enough to whatever environment you happened to be in.
[QUOTE="Decessus
The problem with your example is that the environments are completely different. If you have two people, and they each have equal genetic merit with respect to their environment, then both of them are going to survive. Now, if you have one person who's genetics are suited for one type of environment, and you place him in a completely different environement, then he most likely will not survive.
People who die before reproducing, as far as evolution is concerned, are weak. If you die before reproducing, that just confirms that your genetic makeup was not well suited enough to whatever environment you happened to be in.
But really, who dies out of a sheer lack of genetic competence, and before they have a chance to reproduce? In that frame, most deaths would be by children or young teens, and how else do people of that age die aside from natural things like starvation (which usually results from a situation in which you would have no chance anyway) or maybe murder, from some psycho.
[QUOTE="Ineedtofindyou"]If no god and death is the end, a life of destruction is as valid as a life of self-sacrificing service to humanity. Maybe it would make more sense to be selfish, if no god. Only a fool would sacrifice his life if he only has one life and there is no after-life.
There is no inferior or superior, no evolution or devolution, no progress or regress, no right or wrong, if no god.
Why do human lives matter if there is no god and death is the end? How do you establish that human life is more valuable than buildings? It's not scientific, only a feeling.
The judeo-christian scriptures are verifiable by the hundreds of detailed accurate prophecies concerning the messiah. No other religious scriptures can make such a claim.I can still make up my own morals if I want to. It is most moral to exterminate the poor, inferior peoples, etc. because they destroy the earth, weaken the gene pool, etc. Why not?
Decessus
It all depends on what you mean by both lives are valid. Sure, they both have the same end result, but that's not the only thing that matters. Which life would you rather live? If you constantly disregard the rules and customs of your society, then you will be an outcast. What kind of life is that to live? On the other hand, if you work hard, do good, you have a much better chance of living a life of fulfillment. Personally, I'll take the latter option.
There doesn't have to be a god for there to be ethics. Many of the things that we condem as being unethical are a simple matter of survival. We don't condone killing because if we did, we would never be able to survive as a species. Throughout our evolutionary history, we had to rely on each other in order to survive. If we had to constantly worry about being killed by one of our own, we never would have made it to the point where we are at now.Â
Value is a relative term. The reason that I find my life more valuable than a building is because it's my life. I don't really see what kind of argument you are trying to make here.
There is simply no rational reason to believe in god. It's something that we hold onto because it makes us feel better about our lives and gives our lives a sense of purpose. I say that you give your own life purpose and you should live it for lifes sake, not for some supernatural being that you don't even know exists.
God's love for mankind is the ultimate motive for a theist to do good.
A transcendent standard means that once people know about it they can choose to conform their lives to it or not. If no standard, it doesn't matter one way or the other. One's own conclusions can override and create new definitions of morality or belief in no morality.
What does it matter what you do now? What if it makes me happy to rape, steal, and murder? Fear of god is one motive added to love of people as another. They are not mutually exclusive.
If no god and death is the end, you could either think life is very important or not important at all. I think it wouldn't matter what anyone thinks.
Respect is unscientific. It's scientific to devalue inferior humans and eliminate them for the sake of the evolution of humans.
You can't prove you have self-awareness either because it's not objectively and scientifically observable, just a belief. Atheists can love people or not. Either one has no importance if no god. Love is only a belief, not science.
There is preponderance of evidence for god but not for self-awareness of rocks. Because without a transcendent standard, there is no standard. Mass extermination is as valid as mass altruism. So you agree that God is desirable. Why? The sacrifice of Christ and eternal life are reasons to be altruistic. Otherwise, one will most reasonably act in the interest of personal pleasure and personal survival which may be at others' expense. The delusion is that one should behave well. To behave well even if not contributing to my pleasure and survival, is unreasonable and foolish: the ultimate delusion. Why don't atheists just admit that they do whatever adds to their own pleasure regardless of how others are affected? That would make perfect sense if there is no God.[QUOTE="Ineedtofindyou"]If no god and death is the end, a life of destruction is as valid as a life of self-sacrificing service to humanity. Maybe it would make more sense to be selfish, if no god. Only a fool would sacrifice his life if he only has one life and there is no after-life.
There is no inferior or superior, no evolution or devolution, no progress or regress, no right or wrong, if no god.
Why do human lives matter if there is no god and death is the end? How do you establish that human life is more valuable than buildings? It's not scientific, only a feeling.
The judeo-christian scriptures are verifiable by the hundreds of detailed accurate prophecies concerning the messiah. No other religious scriptures can make such a claim.I can still make up my own morals if I want to. It is most moral to exterminate the poor, inferior peoples, etc. because they destroy the earth, weaken the gene pool, etc. Why not?
Decessus
There is simply no rational reason to believe in god. It's something that we hold onto because it makes us feel better about our lives and gives our lives a sense of purpose. I say that you give your own life purpose and you should live it for lifes sake, not for some supernatural being that you don't even know exists.
If anything, where did the idea of a god without a tangible body come from?
Try to think up anything that doesn't exist. You say something like pink elephants, for instance. Pink exists and elephants exist.Â
Where did the idea of God come from with no relevance to this world? Show me the logic and please provide an example of what doesn't exist.
But really, who dies out of a sheer lack of genetic competence, and before they have a chance to reproduce? In that frame, most deaths would be by children or young teens, and how else do people of that age die aside from natural things like starvation (which usually results from a situation in which you would have no chance anyway) or maybe murder, from some psycho.
Fortier
If you die before you have a chance to reproduce, it is because of your genes.
If you die from starvation, then you simply were not adapted enough to your environment to find food. If you die because someone kills you, then you were not adapted enough to defend yourself or to avoid the situation in the first place.
A flaw in some ppl's reasoning is that they seem to think that what 'strong genes' are and the way in evolution takes us are set in stone. This is not true. In the prehistorics natural selection favored physical strenght and cunning. Handicapped children soon died as they would weaken mankind as a whole and served no purpose in that time. As man settled down, other traits became more important, and the 'natural selection' gradually started to focus on other traits. Nowadays it's focussing on intelligence and power mostly, just take a look how many women seem to fall for guys with money and a flashy car. Disabled people don't affect the gene pool much anymore since they aren't likely going to reproduce anyways. Ugly, dumb, unsuccesful ppl will have a hard time finding a partner.
Saying that the weak will never reproduce and that the strong always survive regardless of circumstance is not correct either. Chances are higher or lower, but the values are not absolute.
Anyways I'm just ranting, I'm tired as ****. Just wanted to add my 2 cents though.
I suppose that "life of destruction" thing makes some sense, but it isn't as if people sacrifice themselves knowing it'll be in vain. A mortally wounded man willingly serving a bait to secure his friends' escape would be no better or different a death than someone going off and killing innocent people.
It's about idealogy and mindset, really.
An argument to 'the amount that human, or any kind for that matter, lives matter more than buildings' is that humans can evolve and learn, while buildings cannot. Once again, all about mindset and beliefs...or instead of beliefs, factual grounding.
 The thing about morals is that, obviously, everyone's morals aren't the same.
When it comes down to it, at our most basic state of being, we do things for mutual survival, being social creatures. It's society and outside influences that teach us our self-determined morals, brought about by our experiences. I'm not sure how being born poor means that your genes are weaker, or inferior, than someone that's wealthy in materials :?. It's also interesting that you stated that these 'poor inferiors' destroy the earth.
Answer this question:
Who has more power; the government, which you basically have to be rich in order to get into a high position (the presidency, for instance), or the poor and less fed, who are deliberatly thrown to the way-side?
Finally.....I guess the reason why people don't go off with their agendas is because the majority of the people among us on earth don't have the will to take the high road alone. Group mentality FTW and FTL.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment