What Is The Purpose Of Life? Poll.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Without free will and the ability to choose or reject God, love would not be of our own choice.

Funky_Llama

God has free will to, but he doesn't sin; thus, free will does not necessitate sin. God could have created humanity so that we had free will, but it was simply not within our nature to do evil.

God cannot sin; it is not in His nature.

1. Oops, looks like you've identified God as not being able to do something, and therefore not omnipotent, and therefore no longer meeting the definition of God. Careless. ;)

2. He could make it so it wasn't in our natures either.

1. He can't sin; it is not in his nature. It's like a straight person fantasising about their same gender... The just can't do it.

2. Which would throw love out of the picture. ;)

1. Then, like I said, he's not omnipotent, and therefore no longer meets the definition of God.

2. And therefore God does not love us, because it is not in his nature. ;)

Good night all. :D

1. Not really no. He's perfect and thus only good comes from him.

2. Yes he does. We betrayed him and spat at Him, disobeyed Him countless times. And yet, He sent his son to die for us. If that's not love, then I don't wanna know what hate is.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Without free will and the ability to choose or reject God, love would not be of our own choice.

Funky_Llama

God has free will to, but he doesn't sin; thus, free will does not necessitate sin. God could have created humanity so that we had free will, but it was simply not within our nature to do evil.

You are making the mistake of trying to equate the free will of the creation with the free will of the Creator. We are finite, He is infinite. He is holy. We are sinners. He is perfect, we are imperfect. He cannot sin and is a spirit and therefore not subject to the desires of the flesh as we are.

He did use His free will to create a path of fellowship and salvation for His fallen creation but you don't want it. He could have just as easily destroyed His entire creation.

This whole comment is irrelevant. :|

That is your opinion, though incorrect, you are entitled to it.

1. Oops, looks like you've identified God as not being able to do something, and therefore not omnipotent, and therefore no longer meeting the definition of God. Careless. ;)

2. He could make it so it wasn't in our natures either.

Funky_Llama

1. Oops, looks like you're unaware of a friend of mine called Saint Thomas Aquinas, who proposed (rightly) that God cannot do logically impossible things, which entails sin.

2. See 1.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

No, I mean that religion is required for 'true' happiness, and there is such a thing as 'true' happiness as a superlative to normal happiness.

mrcong

I already explained it to you. Humanist happiness comes in things that decay and disappear-riches, power, popularity, etc. Since these things eventually break down, so does the happiness that is brought with it. According to athiestic beliefs, all there is the natural and physical, both of which are subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As a result, to a naturalist, all happiness must break down, making it temporal.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]

That is one objective, yes. But that is not my only goal. Either way I can only plant the seed of doubt, God has to work on your heart. And justice... that is one other primary objective of my life. To bring justice, specifically in ways where there is less red tape, if you catch my drift... To bring TRUE justice. I believe that and successfully planting the seed of doubt in someone's heart are my two personal goals, althought the second one should apply to all Christians.

super_mario_128

Well when you bring those two point to the table - Justice and converting ('planting the seed of doubt', if you like) - I don't see how believing that reproduction is the sole purpose of life effectively renders my life with no meaning... Reproduction, to me, isn't just having sex - if I wanted to experience that feeling then I'd masturbate to be quite frank - but about bringing up your child to the best of your ability, educate him, discipline him (him? Or her, I mean :P) and let them live their own life to give more continuity to civilisation; heck, you never know, he may be the genius who discovers a cure to cancer or the secret behind interstellar travel/rejuvanation. :P (As a side note, I don't live my life on the hope that a son or daughter I might have will be a genius who contributes to mankind in the ways I suggested, just fyi... :P.)

Why would you want to bring up your child to the best of your ability tho?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Without free will and the ability to choose or reject God, love would not be of our own choice.

battlefront23

God has free will to, but he doesn't sin; thus, free will does not necessitate sin. God could have created humanity so that we had free will, but it was simply not within our nature to do evil.

God cannot sin; it is not in His nature.

1. Oops, looks like you've identified God as not being able to do something, and therefore not omnipotent, and therefore no longer meeting the definition of God. Careless. ;)

2. He could make it so it wasn't in our natures either.

1. He can't sin; it is not in his nature. It's like a straight person fantasising about their same gender... The just can't do it.

2. Which would throw love out of the picture. ;)

1. Then, like I said, he's not omnipotent, and therefore no longer meets the definition of God.

2. And therefore God does not love us, because it is not in his nature. ;)

Good night all. :D

1. Not really no. He's perfect and thus only good comes from him.

2. Yes he does. We betrayed him and spat at Him, disobeyed Him countless times. And yet, He sent his son to die for us. If that's not love, then I don't wanna know what hate is.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Without free will and the ability to choose or reject God, love would not be of our own choice.

xaos

God has free will to, but he doesn't sin; thus, free will does not necessitate sin. God could have created humanity so that we had free will, but it was simply not within our nature to do evil.

You are making the mistake of trying to equate the free will of the creation with the free will of the Creator. We are finite, He is infinite. He is holy. We are sinners. He is perfect, we are imperfect. He cannot sin and is a spirit and therefore not subject to the desires of the flesh as we are.

He did use His free will to create a path of fellowship and salvation for His fallen creation but you don't want it. He could have just as easily destroyed His entire creation.

He did not create us flawed. He created us perfect. When Adam and Eve chose disobedience, sin entered the world and our nature.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Without free will and the ability to choose or reject God, love would not be of our own choice.

xaos

God has free will to, but he doesn't sin; thus, free will does not necessitate sin. God could have created humanity so that we had free will, but it was simply not within our nature to do evil.

God cannot sin; it is not in His nature.

1. Oops, looks like you've identified God as not being able to do something, and therefore not omnipotent, and therefore no longer meeting the definition of God. Careless. ;)

2. He could make it so it wasn't in our natures either.

1. He can't sin; it is not in his nature. It's like a straight person fantasising about their same gender... The just can't do it.

2. Which would throw love out of the picture. ;)

1. Then, like I said, he's not omnipotent, and therefore no longer meets the definition of God.

2. And therefore God does not love us, because it is not in his nature. ;)

Good night all. :D

1. Not really no. He's perfect and thus only good comes from him.

2. Yes he does. We betrayed him and spat at Him, disobeyed Him countless times. And yet, He sent his son to die for us. If that's not love, then I don't wanna know what hate is.

His Son was Him, God manifested in the flesh.

So then, it's "do whatever you want, but I'll punish you eternally if you don't do what I want?"xaos

No, its not about living in a way determined arbitrarily by some human, as you imply. It is about living righteously. Fellowship with God is righteous, since God himself is righteous. Any life not focused primarily around this is unrighteous, and is deserving of judgement from a just God.

So, its more like "Do whatever you want, but only fellowship with me-which is what I originally intended-is the correct and righteous way to lead your life"

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Without free will and the ability to choose or reject God, love would not be of our own choice.

xaos

God has free will to, but he doesn't sin; thus, free will does not necessitate sin. God could have created humanity so that we had free will, but it was simply not within our nature to do evil.

God cannot sin; it is not in His nature.

1. Oops, looks like you've identified God as not being able to do something, and therefore not omnipotent, and therefore no longer meeting the definition of God. Careless. ;)

2. He could make it so it wasn't in our natures either.

1. He can't sin; it is not in his nature. It's like a straight person fantasising about their same gender... The just can't do it.

2. Which would throw love out of the picture. ;)

1. Then, like I said, he's not omnipotent, and therefore no longer meets the definition of God.

2. And therefore God does not love us, because it is not in his nature. ;)

Good night all. :D

1. Not really no. He's perfect and thus only good comes from him.

2. Yes he does. We betrayed him and spat at Him, disobeyed Him countless times. And yet, He sent his son to die for us. If that's not love, then I don't wanna know what hate is.

Jesus did it willingly even though He knew what pain would be cast upon Him. But He still did it. In fact, He was being mocked while on the cross and he prayed for those mockers' forgiveness. I know I most certaintly wouldn't do that. :|

Why would you want to bring up your child to the best of your ability tho?

battlefront23

[QUOTE="xaos"]So then, it's "do whatever you want, but I'll punish you eternally if you don't do what I want?"mrcong

No, its not about living in a way determined arbitrarily by some human, as you imply. It is about living righteously. Fellowship with God is righteous, since God himself is righteous. Any life not focused primarily around this is unrighteous, and is deserving of judgement from a just God.

So, its more like "Do whatever you want, but only fellowship with me-which is what I originally intended-is the correct and righteous way to lead your life"

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Without free will and the ability to choose or reject God, love would not be of our own choice.

blackregiment

God has free will to, but he doesn't sin; thus, free will does not necessitate sin. God could have created humanity so that we had free will, but it was simply not within our nature to do evil.

You are making the mistake of trying to equate the free will of the creation with the free will of the Creator. We are finite, He is infinite. He is holy. We are sinners. He is perfect, we are imperfect. He cannot sin and is a spirit and therefore not subject to the desires of the flesh as we are.

He did use His free will to create a path of fellowship and salvation for His fallen creation but you don't want it. He could have just as easily destroyed His entire creation.

He did not create us flawed. He created us perfect. When Adam and Eve chose disobedience, sin entered the world and our nature.

exaggerating?

legend26

Yes exaggerating with flair and off-topic as well. Start a mother Ghia thread for that.

I notice you focus on Mammon-like sources of happiness; what about emotional connections to people? P.S. thermodynamics does not apply to ideas (such as "happiness")xaos

No, thermodynamics doesn't directly apply to human emotions. However, it does apply to the physical world. Since naturalism holds that all that exists is the physical, all happiness must come from physical items that decay. It's quite simple.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]

Why would you want to bring up your child to the best of your ability tho?

super_mario_128

:P I know this is gonna annoy you BUT why do you feel this way? Why do you want your child to not be a chav? Why not look out for yourself?

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Without free will and the ability to choose or reject God, love would not be of our own choice.

blackregiment

God has free will to, but he doesn't sin; thus, free will does not necessitate sin. God could have created humanity so that we had free will, but it was simply not within our nature to do evil.

God cannot sin; it is not in His nature.

1. Oops, looks like you've identified God as not being able to do something, and therefore not omnipotent, and therefore no longer meeting the definition of God. Careless. ;)

2. He could make it so it wasn't in our natures either.

1. He can't sin; it is not in his nature. It's like a straight person fantasising about their same gender... The just can't do it.

2. Which would throw love out of the picture. ;)

1. Then, like I said, he's not omnipotent, and therefore no longer meets the definition of God.

2. And therefore God does not love us, because it is not in his nature. ;)

Good night all. :D

1. Not really no. He's perfect and thus only good comes from him.

2. Yes he does. We betrayed him and spat at Him, disobeyed Him countless times. And yet, He sent his son to die for us. If that's not love, then I don't wanna know what hate is.

His Son was Him, God manifested in the flesh.

then he prayed to himself the whole time.....

[QUOTE="xaos"] I notice you focus on Mammon-like sources of happiness; what about emotional connections to people? P.S. thermodynamics does not apply to ideas (such as "happiness")mrcong

No, thermodynamics doesn't directly apply to human emotions. However, it does apply to the physical world. Since naturalism holds that all that exists is the physical, all happiness must come from physical items that decay. It's quite simple.

then he prayed to himself the whole time.....

legend26

The Trinity is a mystery we will never fully understand until the Lord returns. God in one in essence, three in Persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Without free will and the ability to choose or reject God, love would not be of our own choice.

xaos

God has free will to, but he doesn't sin; thus, free will does not necessitate sin. God could have created humanity so that we had free will, but it was simply not within our nature to do evil.

You are making the mistake of trying to equate the free will of the creation with the free will of the Creator. We are finite, He is infinite. He is holy. We are sinners. He is perfect, we are imperfect. He cannot sin and is a spirit and therefore not subject to the desires of the flesh as we are.

He did use His free will to create a path of fellowship and salvation for His fallen creation but you don't want it. He could have just as easily destroyed His entire creation.

He did not create us flawed. He created us perfect. When Adam and Eve chose disobedience, sin entered the world and our nature.

christianity= contradiction after contradiction

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Without free will and the ability to choose or reject God, love would not be of our own choice.

legend26

God has free will to, but he doesn't sin; thus, free will does not necessitate sin. God could have created humanity so that we had free will, but it was simply not within our nature to do evil.

You are making the mistake of trying to equate the free will of the creation with the free will of the Creator. We are finite, He is infinite. He is holy. We are sinners. He is perfect, we are imperfect. He cannot sin and is a spirit and therefore not subject to the desires of the flesh as we are.

He did use His free will to create a path of fellowship and salvation for His fallen creation but you don't want it. He could have just as easily destroyed His entire creation.

He did not create us flawed. He created us perfect. When Adam and Eve chose disobedience, sin entered the world and our nature.

christianity= contradiction after contradiction

Nope. You obviously didn't read what I wrote. ;)

You lose 5 internets for not having "42" in the poll. >_>

Yeesh, why have 30% of people voted for option 1, thats the one option I didn't even take seriously. I voted no purpose.rb2610

:lol: Why would you not take it seriously?

I live a moral life, treat others with the dignity I myself would like to be treated with, do not steal or purposefully injure others etc. I do not believe in God. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Christian belief that no amount of good behavior will ever make me righteous in the eyes of God?xaos

First off, no you do not live a moral life. This may seem like a brazen claim, but it is truth. A moral life is one that has not, and never will contain any immoral action. Are you prepared to tell me that you have never made an error? You haven't lied once? You've never lusted? You've never treated someone with disrespect? In other words, are you claiming your own perfection?

Yes, no amount of good work can justify you in the eyes of God. Only acceptance of Christ's sacrifice at Calvary can earn one righteousness. Fellowship with God will result from a true conversion, and will lead to righteous living. It is not the living that justifies somebody, its the initial conversion.

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"]Because, if I had a son/daughter, I'd love them and want them to live a moral life; not one where they aren't educated about the taboos of society and kill people, act impolitely and have no education of the World and the idea of opinions whatsoever. By opinions I speak of a bunch of chavs in London who killed someone for looking different... I don't want one of those murderers to be my child...battlefront23

:P I know this is gonna annoy you BUT why do you feel this way? Why do you want your child to not be a chav? Why not look out for yourself?

Heh, originally I said reproduction was the purpose of life for me. If my child were to grow up to be a failure - a murderer, rapist etc - I'd have failed the purpose, no? Of course, sentimental reasons apply aswell - I wouldn't want him to end up in prison or dead; a sad waste of a life which I've lost...

I do look out for myself - I'd never put myself in a life or death situation where odds aren't tending extremely towards my favour; this doesn't mean I can't look out for the welfare of others, especially ones that hold my genes. :P

If that were so, wouldn't naturalism as you define it deny that happiness exists?xaos

Well there you go. By an athiest's admission, athiesm cannot bring happiness.=)

Thank you

[QUOTE="legend26"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Without free will and the ability to choose or reject God, love would not be of our own choice.

battlefront23

God has free will to, but he doesn't sin; thus, free will does not necessitate sin. God could have created humanity so that we had free will, but it was simply not within our nature to do evil.

You are making the mistake of trying to equate the free will of the creation with the free will of the Creator. We are finite, He is infinite. He is holy. We are sinners. He is perfect, we are imperfect. He cannot sin and is a spirit and therefore not subject to the desires of the flesh as we are.

He did use His free will to create a path of fellowship and salvation for His fallen creation but you don't want it. He could have just as easily destroyed His entire creation.

He did not create us flawed. He created us perfect. When Adam and Eve chose disobedience, sin entered the world and our nature.

christianity= contradiction after contradiction

Nope. You obviously didn't read what I wrote. ;)

if adam and eve were created ABSOLUTELY pefect then why did they sin?

also isnt god sapposed to be the only perfect one? if his first creation were "perefect" in every cense of the word woudnt they themselves be considerd "gods"? then god woudnt be the only perfect being thus negating all excistance....

[QUOTE="mrcong"]

[QUOTE="xaos"]So then, it's "do whatever you want, but I'll punish you eternally if you don't do what I want?"xaos

No, its not about living in a way determined arbitrarily by some human, as you imply. It is about living righteously. Fellowship with God is righteous, since God himself is righteous. Any life not focused primarily around this is unrighteous, and is deserving of judgement from a just God.

So, its more like "Do whatever you want, but only fellowship with me-which is what I originally intended-is the correct and righteous way to lead your life"

So you are sinless. Have you ever told a lie? Ever stolen anything, even something small? Ever looked at a girl with lust in your heart? Ever coveted something someone had? Ever hated anyone? I have done all these things.

Sinless huh?

Without the blood of Christ to cover our sins, no one will be saved.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]Because, if I had a son/daughter, I'd love them and want them to live a moral life; not one where they aren't educated about the taboos of society and kill people, act impolitely and have no education of the World and the idea of opinions whatsoever. By opinions I speak of a bunch of chavs in London who killed someone for looking different... I don't want one of those murderers to be my child...super_mario_128

:P I know this is gonna annoy you BUT why do you feel this way? Why do you want your child to not be a chav? Why not look out for yourself?

Heh, originally I said reproduction was the purpose of life. If my child were to grow up to be a failure - a murderer, rapist etc - I'd have failed the purpose, no? Of course, sentimental reasons apply aswell - I wouldn't want him to end up in prison or dead; a sad waste of a life which I've lost...

I do look out for myself - I'd never put myself in a life or death situation where odds are tending extremely towards my favour; this doesn't mean I can't look out for the welfare of others, especially my one's that hold my genes. :P

So its something personal rather then something proved by science? Am I right in assuming that?

*Spoiler warning!*

To Die.

if adam and eve were created ABSOLUTELY pefect then why did they sin?

also isnt god sapposed to be the only perfect one? if his first creation were "perefect" in every cense of the word woudnt they themselves be considerd "gods"? then god woudnt be the only perfect being thus negating all excistance....

legend26

One could consider them perfect in that they hadn't sinned yet; they were pure. However, they were not actually perfect because they had the potential to sin due to their freedom of choice.

*Spoiler warning!*

To Die.

Finaru

You just ruined my life!

I really wanted to know what happens at the end of it, but no, you just had to spoil it for me. Thanks.

:P

lol

So its something personal rather then something proved by science? Am I right in assuming that?

battlefront23

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="legend26"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="blackregiment"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Without free will and the ability to choose or reject God, love would not be of our own choice.

legend26

God has free will to, but he doesn't sin; thus, free will does not necessitate sin. God could have created humanity so that we had free will, but it was simply not within our nature to do evil.

You are making the mistake of trying to equate the free will of the creation with the free will of the Creator. We are finite, He is infinite. He is holy. We are sinners. He is perfect, we are imperfect. He cannot sin and is a spirit and therefore not subject to the desires of the flesh as we are.

He did use His free will to create a path of fellowship and salvation for His fallen creation but you don't want it. He could have just as easily destroyed His entire creation.

He did not create us flawed. He created us perfect. When Adam and Eve chose disobedience, sin entered the world and our nature.

christianity= contradiction after contradiction

Nope. You obviously didn't read what I wrote. ;)

if adam and eve were created ABSOLUTELY pefect then why did they sin?

also isnt god sapposed to be the only perfect one? if his first creation were "perefect" in every cense of the word woudnt they themselves be considerd "gods"? then god woudnt be the only perfect being thus negating all excistance....

They were perfectly created but I fail to see how that makes them gods; they are humans. Anyway temptation was brought to the world and since Adam was only human he could fall into temptation; where as God cannot because He is a perfect God. Perfecly God =/= Perfectly Human.

*Spoiler warning!*

To Die.

Finaru

*Spoiler warning!*

To Die.

Finaru

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]

So its something personal rather then something proved by science? Am I right in assuming that?

super_mario_128

It's why when someone says they only trust in science... I am scared for them, you know what I mean? Science =/= morality. So if someone purely believed in the Darwinistic approach, they would believe in survival of the fittest and thus kill any of those who were less "fit". And is it also safe to assume you don't believe in that approach, at least not with humans?

*Spoiler warning!*

To Die.

Finaru

Even though I'm sure this was a gag, are you saying the purpose of living is death? That is like saying the purpose of education is ignorance...

Completely off-topic, I apoligize.

^Why does your GT look so familiar "Tortilla Jim"?

ladies and gentalmen, this is THE meaning of life!

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

leave in peace

Yep you are right; I don't see how love for your child can be affected by science though. Unless I misunderstood your point; in which case, enlighten me. :Psuper_mario_128

Well, then, if love cannot be proven scientifically at all, how can you say it exists? After all, you say that God cannot be proven scientifically, and as a result He is imaginary. Are we going to add love the list of things that cannot exist in atheism, alongside happiness?

Completely off-topic, I apoligize.

^Why does your GT look so familiar "Tortilla Jim"?

-eddy-

I'd guess because you have seen it before...

There is no external meaning or purpose to life. Whatever you feel is important, is important. You create your own illusion of purpose.xXBuffJeffXx

I completely agree with this guy.

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

So its something personal rather then something proved by science? Am I right in assuming that?

battlefront23

It's why when someone says they only trust in science... I am scared for them, you know what I mean? Science =/= morality. So if someone purely believed in the Darwinistic approach, they would believe in survival of the fittest and thus kill any of those who were less "fit". And is it also safe to assume you don't believe in that approach, at least not with humans?

I don't think physically killing humans who aren't physically or mentally fit is moral... I do think though that genetic engineering (culling the unfavourable traits in the race and leaving only the favourable (the ones that make a human perfectly healthy and intelligent) traits in the genes that they pass onto their children - this is of course if science becomes advanced enough to do this) is a feasible way of creating healthier offspring and a better future - this however is almost impossible as it would require Word-wide co-operation for it to work.

If for example, there was a village on the middle of an island with no other human life on living this island; we have a geneticist who's trained to cull unfavouable genes in the colonys' offspring and in a century or two (the job of geneticist is passed down to at least one person so that when the original one dies there won't be any left on the island), the humans on that island could possibly live longer than humans outside of the island because of genetic engineering. This is merely science fiction though, but it is a possibility for the future methinks - it is much for... moral to do this than to kill people for being weaker... :|

Sorry for the long wait of my reply, I hope it was worth it. :x :P

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="super_mario_128"][QUOTE="battlefront23"]

So its something personal rather then something proved by science? Am I right in assuming that?

super_mario_128

It's why when someone says they only trust in science... I am scared for them, you know what I mean? Science =/= morality. So if someone purely believed in the Darwinistic approach, they would believe in survival of the fittest and thus kill any of those who were less "fit". And is it also safe to assume you don't believe in that approach, at least not with humans?

I don't think physically killing humans who aren't physically or mentally fit is moral... I do think though that genetic engineering (culling the unfavourable traits in the race and leaving only the favourable (the ones that make a human perfectly healthy and intelligent) traits in the genes that they pass onto their children - this is of course if science becomes advanced enough to do this) is a feasible way of creating healthier offspring and a better future - this however is almost impossible as it would require Word-wide co-operation for it to work.

If for example, there was a village on the middle of an island with no other human life on living this island; we have a geneticist who's trained to cull unfavouable genes in the colonys' offspring and in a century or two (the job of geneticist is passed down to at least one person so that when the original one dies there won't be any left on the island), the humans on that island could possibly live longer than humans outside of the island because of genetic engineering. This is merely science fiction though, but it is a possibility for the future methinks - it is much for... moral to do this than to kill people for being weaker... :|

Sorry for the long wait of my reply, I hope it was worth it. :x :P

Now I don't agree at all, to be honest. If a person is born a certain way, they are meant to be that way. And I'm not calling you one, but thats is somewhat close to what the Nazis believed. :|

[QUOTE="Hungry_bunny"]

Reproduction has always sounded like a weird answer to me...

Reproduction for the sake of more reproduction sounds like sleeping for the sake of more sleep, War for the sake of more War, posting for the sake of more posting, breathing for the sake of more breathing... pretty pointless... damn I'm sounding depressing >__>

blackregiment

Your point is well taken. In the pure Darwinian model, one should not reproduce as that could endanger one's existence in a survival of the fittest world since there would be more competition for limited reseources.

That's based upon the assumption that the individual is the primary vector for natural selection, whereas most would agree that it is actually the genes that fufill this purpose.