Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Spearthrower · **#361** by **Spearthrower** » Oct 31, 2014 10:32 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetic ... r_solvents

In addition to carbon compounds, all currently known terrestrial life also requires water as a solvent. This has led to discussions about whether water is the only liquid capable of filling that role. The idea that an extraterrestrial life-form might be based on a solvent other than water has been taken seriously in recent scientific literature by the biochemist Steven Benner,[25] and by the astrobiological committee chaired by John A. Baross.[26] Solvents discussed by the Baross committee include ammonia,[27] sulfuric acid,[28] formamide,[29] hydrocarbons,[29] and (at temperatures much lower than Earth's) liquid nitrogen, or hydrogen in the form of a supercritical fluid.[30]

Carl Sagan once described himself as both a carbon chauvinist and a water chauvinist;[31] however on another occasion he said he was a carbon chauvinist but "not that much of a water chauvinist".[32] He considered hydrocarbons,[32] hydrofluoric acid,[33] and ammonia[32][33] as possible alternatives to water.

Some of the properties of water that are important for life processes include a large temperature range over which it is liquid, a high heat capacity (useful for temperature regulation), a large heat of vaporization, and the ability to dissolve a wide variety of compounds. Water is also amphoteric, meaning it can donate and accept an H+ ion, allowing it to act as an acid or a base. This property is crucial in many organic and biochemical reactions, where water serves as a solvent, a reactant, or a product. There are other chemicals with similar properties that have sometimes been proposed as alternatives. Additionally, water has the unusual property of being less dense as a solid (ice) than as a liquid. This is why bodies of water freeze over but do not freeze solid (from the bottom up). If ice were denser than liquid water (as is true for nearly all other compounds), then large bodies of liquid would slowly freeze solid, which would not be conducive to the formation of life.

Not all properties of water are necessarily advantageous for life, however.[34] For instance, water ice has a high albedo,[34] meaning that it reflects a significant quantity of light and heat from the Sun. During ice ages, as reflective ice builds up over the surface of the water, the effects of global cooling are increased.[34]

There are some properties that make certain compounds and elements much more favorable than others as solvents in a successful biosphere. The solvent must be able to exist in liquid equilibrium over a range of temperatures the planetary object would normally encounter. Because boiling points vary with the pressure, the question tends not to be does the prospective solvent remain liquid, but at what pressure. For example, hydrogen cyanide has a narrow liquid phase temperature range at 1 atmosphere, but in an atmosphere with the pressure of Venus, with 92 bars (9.2 MPa) of pressure, it can indeed exist in liquid form over a wide temperature range.

Onyx8 · **#362** by **Onyx8** » Oct 31, 2014 10:41 pm

Never mind the universe not generally being supportive of life, the vast majority of the planet isn't either. All life on the planet exists in about a 5 mile thick band at the interface between the water and the rock, elsewhere: nada.

Rumraket · **#363** by **Rumraket** » Oct 31, 2014 10:55 pm

carl wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:However, if you observe the formation of a snowflake, there is no thought to guide the development; it is simply the way that the universe works.

I disagree. It is your belief that there was no thought behind snowflakes. Since h20 is a polar molecule, it can only form snowflakes in certain shapes.

It is not the polarity of H2O that determines the shape of ice crystals(plenty of nonpolar compounds can also form ordered structures when they freeze), it is the distribution of electrons around the nucleus of Oxygen that forms a tetrahedron.

This is not a result of thought, or design, but an inevitable consequence of trying to pack 8 mutually repulsive electrons as closely as possible in a cloud surrounding the positively charged nucleus. They will unavoidably "fall" into the lowest energy state available, that is, they will - because they are attracted to the protons of the nucleus - get as close as they can until the mutual repulsion by the other electrons present balances it out. This problem has a spatial "solution" in the tetrahedronal distribution of the electron pairs. When hydrogen atoms form covalent bonds with oxygen, the superior electronegativity of oxygen pulls harder on the electron belonging to hydrogen, making the hydrogen atom sort of positively charged most of the time. It will therefore attract to one of the electron pairs surrounding the oxygen nucleus. So that's where it "sits".

That's what gives water molecules(and therefore the crystals they form) their shape. No intent or design is needed to explain this. In fact intent couldn't explain it by any other way than the emptiness of mere assertion. "Water molecules are the way they are because that's what the designer wanted". That's not an explanation, it's at best an account, and it has zero support in anything. All assertion, no sausage.

carl wrote: This implies to me IMHO, that there was thought involved in making h20 a polar molecule in the first place.

Your opinion doesn't so much appear to me humble, as ignorant.

ADParker · **#364** by **ADParker** » Nov 01, 2014 12:22 am

carl wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:However, if you observe the formation of a snowflake, there is no thought to guide the development; it is simply the way that the universe works.

I disagree. It is your belief that there was no thought behind snowflakes. Since h20 is a polar molecule, it can only form snowflakes in certain shapes. This implies to me IMHO, that there was thought involved in making h20 a polar molecule in the first place. Beauty has its place - for us to enjoy, for example, although not the only reason.

Other reasons for h20 to be a polar molecule? My belief is that it was created as such to be the universal solvent to sustain life. Was this a mere coincidence or accident in our universe? I don't believe in coincidences for the most part, especially when it comes to huge (biological) life implications.

There are way too many coincidences for earth to be able to sustain life, IMHO. Anybody know exactly how many things/factors were needed to come together to make life sustainable on earth?

Oh my giddy Aunt! :what:

Are you seriously trying to equate the quoted contention that snowflakes form because that is the nature of the universe (water molecules etc.) with yours that snowflakes form because some being created those aspects of the universe to have that nature?! :crazy:

By the way I simply do believe that the nature of water molecules "implies" to you that there was thought involved, instead you already assume that everything was created with thought involved. You are projecting your beliefs into the observation, not forming a belief based on that observation. :naughty:

Greyman · **#365** by **Greyman** » Nov 01, 2014 12:46 am

So, on one hand we have a universe designer who tinkered with the fundamentals of physics so that chemo-physical properties of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, et cetera, would emerge from the quantuum level interaction of electromagnetic fields of nucleons and electrons. This is all in order to ensure that life could be supported on one pale blue dot in the unfashionable western arm of a single spiral galaxy, just so that one species would be able to appreciate the beauty of snowflakes and rainbows and stuff.

Yet, on the other hand, none of this really matters because physical processes aren't necessary to sustain pure mentalities, or something.

Apparently, one pair of this species, kept in a garden on this pale blue dot, ate a piece of forbidden fruit planted in the very same garden, which somehow endowed them (and their descendants) with the ability to make moral judgments causing their creator to become afraid that they'd eat the other fruit which would cause them to become immortal (and somehow just as powerful). Then follows the whole narrative of the jealous creator's vengeance and genocide until he changes his mind, and uses his son's ritual murder to promise eternal afterlife to the spirits of people who believe in him (and eternal punishment to those who don't) ... apparently after another divinely ordained murderfest destroys the world. Again.

Yeah, no inconsistencies here.

redwhine · **#366** by **redwhine** » Nov 01, 2014 9:15 am

carl wrote:I was referring to nonphysical concepts such as being 'wrong', and emotions such as 'anger'. In turn, you referred to 'gravity', a physical entity, which is quite different. Apples and oranges.

Both apples and oranges are physical entities, as are chalk and cheese. Care to try again?

redwhine · **#367** by **redwhine** » Nov 01, 2014 9:33 am

carl wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
carl wrote:Because knowing something does not equate to rendering it powerless.

If we give our emotions 'power', then yes, they do have power in our lives. If we live and think as though our emotions are nothing more than brain chemistry, this give me very little reason to add any value to my feelings and give them any 'power'.

Look at this forum for example. Most of the emotions I see expressed here on this forum, if produced simply as a perception from brain chemistry, are of little ultimate value. You think Christianity is silly? So? Silly is your brain chemistry talking and nothing more. In which case, our conversations here are of little value as well.

However, if there are absolute rights/wrongs and truths/falsehoods which exist apart from brain chemistry, of which I do believe in, this gives my values and my life (IMHO at least) significantly more meaning, purpose, and personal accountability above and beyond mere brain chemistry.

To say that right/wrong from brain chemistry alone is of equal significance as absolute right/wrong, is where you and I may differ. On this note, I cannot agree.

Carl. Please learn how to use the quote function. Simply select a post you wish to respond to, click the ["QUOTE] button (top right), type your response then click [Submit].

Nothing else is needed.

I've lost count of the posts where you have miscredited posts, including the one above.

Calilasseia · **#368** by **Calilasseia** » Nov 01, 2014 2:36 pm

carl wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:No authority, Carl. That's the point. Similarly to evolution...

This is your belief

Bollocks. Evolution isn't a matter of "belief", it's a matter of hard empirical evidence. Do learn this before posting more embarrassing drivel such as the above.

carl wrote:in which you have placed your faith.

Bollocks once more. Evolutionary processes are routinely observed and subject to empirical test. Which is more than happens with mythological assertions about a magic man.

carl wrote: Sure, I understand that certain behaviors can promote survivability. But to say that survivability is the only reason that a particular societal value exists is an unprovable position and a matter of faith.

Except that, oh wait, Spearthrower provided an empirical test for the above. Namely, see how long a behaviour persists, depending upon whether it enhances survivability or it doesn't.

carl wrote:Just because a value is beneficial to society does not imply that that is the reason for its existence.

Well perhaps you could tell us what values societies have adhered to that are not beneficial thereto?

carl wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:However, if you observe the formation of a snowflake, there is no thought to guide the development; it is simply the way that the universe works.

I disagree. It is your belief that there was no thought behind snowflakes.

Bullshit once again. There is zero evidence for any sentient entity being responsible for snowflakes.

carl wrote: Since h20 is a polar molecule, it can only form snowflakes in certain shapes. This implies to me IMHO, that there was thought involved in making h20 a polar molecule in the first place.

Complete poppycock. Did you never attend a basic physics class?

Water molecules are polar because the constituent atoms possess different electronegativities, upon account of the interactions between the nucleus and the surrounding electrons.That's all there is to it.

carl wrote:Beauty has its place - for us to enjoy, for example, although not the only reason.

Drop the teleological waffle, there's no evidence for any of it.

carl wrote:Other reasons for h20 to be a polar molecule? My belief is that it was created as such to be the universal solvent to sustain life.

Ah, Douglas Adams' Puddle raises its head once more. Wrong.

We are here because the requisite chemistry permitted our existence, and the requisite, permitted historical events leading to our emergence took place. You have it completely backwards.

carl wrote:Was this a mere coincidence or accident in our universe?

Oh dear, the "accident" canard so beloved of creationists.

You have forgotten something else applicable here. Namely testable natural processes.

carl wrote:I don't believe in coincidences for the most part, especially when it comes to huge (biological) life implications.

Belief is part of your trouble. Try abandoning it for evidence.

carl wrote:There are way too many coincidences for earth to be able to sustain life, IMHO.

Douglas Adams' Puddle once again. Sigh. See above.

carl wrote: Anybody know exactly how many things/factors were needed to come together to make life sustainable on earth?

Ah, argument from ignorance and personal incredulity. We see it all the time from creationists.

THWOTH · **#369** by **THWOTH** » Nov 01, 2014 11:41 pm

carl wrote:If we give our emotions 'power', then yes, they do have power in our lives. If we live and think as though our emotions are nothing more than brain chemistry, this give me very little reason to add any value to my feelings and give them any 'power'.

Emotions exist beyond our capacity to rationalise them, and their 'power', as you put it, is rooted in their essentially informative nature. Understanding the physiological underpinnings of emotion does not rob them of their informative power, even as that may, in some instances, allow us to develop and amend our attitudes to the information they convey.

The 'value' of one's feelings are an incorrigible concern for the individual, and an understanding of the physiological underpinnings of emotional responses, and even of a psychological appreciation of them in the abstract, does not really wash all personal emotional experiences aside. In fact, to imply that those who have some understanding of the physiological/psychological nature of emotion are somehow made emotionally deficient by devaluing their own emotional responses appears mainly as an attempt to downgrade and/or undermine personal experience of those who do not share your particular religious perspective.

Knowledge, of course, de-mystifies that which seemed, in ignorance, mysterious. Acquiring knowledge does not diminish the individual nor necessarily devalue their experience. The experience of music or mathematics for example can be enhanced, can become richer, more varied, more powerful, and therefore more valuable to the individual, as a result of the acquisition of a little de-mystifying knowledge in those areas.

carl wrote:Look at this forum for example. Most of the emotions I see expressed here on this forum, if produced simply as a perception from brain chemistry, are of little ultimate value. You think Christianity is silly? So? Silly is your brain chemistry talking and nothing more. In which case, our conversations here are of little value as well.

Why are you particularly concerned with the 'ultimate value' of other people's experiences?

Many of the religiously inclined seem uncommonly keen to earnestly declare that their incorrigible personal experiences somehow have more absolute value and/or meaning than those who advance non-religious and/or material explanations for life processes. Essentially, this boils down to a claim that a non-religious perspective results in an impoverished existence - and yet, with the experience of believer and non-believer alike being fundamentally and unequivocally incorrigible the truth of such an presumed absolute rests solely on the value of one individual's experiences being made the measure by which all other's experience should be judged.

carl wrote:However, if there are absolute rights/wrongs and truths/falsehoods which exist apart from brain chemistry, of which I do believe in, this gives my values and my life (IMHO at least) significantly more meaning, purpose, and personal accountability above and beyond mere brain chemistry.

See what I mean? :ask:

Here the declared existence of certain (unnamed) absolute truths and/or falsehoods acts merely as cover for a self-serving claim that religious individuals' experiences are of a better sort, quality or kind - a supposed 'fact' that relies entirely on the religious individual's assessment, measured by self-determined conditions, about the presumed superior quality of their own experience.

Two can play at that game:

Water is wet.
Meat is murder.
Country music is shit.

By these truths I hereby declare my experience superior to all others.

carl wrote:To say that right/wrong from brain chemistry alone is of equal significance as absolute right/wrong, is where you and I may differ. On this note, I cannot agree.

If you can give a single example of an absolute right/wrong (a moral fact) that is inimitable by distinction of being apprehensible only through the acceptance of the precepts of a particular religious tradition, and for which you can demonstrate that the brain chemistry of any individual plays absolutely no part, then you may have a point. Do you have an example of such a uniquely religious moral fact?

Zadocfish2 · **#370** by **Zadocfish2** » Nov 02, 2014 1:32 am

Two can play at that game:
Water is wet.
Meat is murder.
Country music is shit.

2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Nebogipfel · **#371** by **Nebogipfel** » Nov 02, 2014 3:29 pm

carl wrote:Most of the emotions I see expressed here on this forum, if produced simply as a perception from brain chemistry, are of little ultimate value.

Why are they of little ultimate value?

You think Christianity is silly? So? Silly is your brain chemistry talking and nothing more. In which case, our conversations here are of little value as well.

Why? You keep asserting that something that is "just brain chemistry" is of little or no value, but you have not explained why this should be.

However, if there are absolute rights/wrongs and truths/falsehoods which exist apart from brain chemistry, of which I do believe in, this gives my values and my life (IMHO at least) significantly more meaning, purpose, and personal accountability above and beyond mere brain chemistry.

Your mileage clearly varies. Again, you have yet to explain why "mere brain chemistry" cannot produce valid stuff.

ADParker · **#372** by **ADParker** » Nov 03, 2014 5:29 am

Nebogipfel wrote:
carl wrote:Most of the emotions I see expressed here on this forum, if produced simply as a perception from brain chemistry, are of little ultimate value.

Why are they of little ultimate value?

'Cause he reckons that if you ain't one of his god's little play things then you ain't worth spit. :roll:

redwhine · **#373** by **redwhine** » Nov 03, 2014 8:58 am

carl wrote:Most of the emotions I see expressed here on this forum, if produced simply as a perception from brain chemistry, are of little ultimate value.

Your belief in magic sky pilot is simply a perception from brain chemistry.

What's the difference between value and ultimate value?

hackenslash · **#374** by **hackenslash** » Nov 03, 2014 10:01 am

Well, the word 'ultimate' is the ultimate apologetic interjection, employed to let you know that it's really, really, important.

Of course, if it really were the ultimate apologetic interjection, we'd all be able to sleep better in the secure knowledge that the apologists had finally shut the fuck up.

Uberuce · **#375** by **Uberuce** » Nov 05, 2014 8:03 pm

From the subtitle:

Why were many of history's most brutal regimes authored by atheists?

Because they wanted to be the Big Dog and didn't want any competition?

If you're going to make a personality cult around yourself, it strikes me as a terrible plan to tolerate the worship of an entity that's alleged to be even better than you, especially when there's a well-established organisation of great political power that is based on the belief that its oddly-dressed officers have a better knowledge of this entity than anyone else, including you.

Another reason might be that when communism goes wrong(ie kinda always), it goes horrible brutal regime-y wrong, and meanwhile the idea of the Abrahamic God just isn't communist enough to pass muster, so there's your causal connection for that lot. Mao and Stalin disputed Darwinism for the same reason, plumping instead for Lynsenkoism, which is lovely and commie, but fucks up your crop yields and starves your population.

I wonder if you're going to take note of that last bit in future discussions. Maybe calling them anti-Creationist rather than Darwinist?

I guess your original post is working on the notion you can discredit any given political, ethical or maybe even aesthetic opinion by finding evidence that the adherents of it are complete arseholes. As other posters have already pointed out, with empirical or mathematical issues, there is no connection either way between the two, but I tentatively agree that it's a worrying sign for the first three. That's irrelevant to me in the case of this thread, because I don't share the political, ethical or aesthetic opinions regarding God that those arseholes did.

I was to describe my political/ethical/aesthetic opinions on Life, The Universe and Everything, I'd say mostly I'm a skeptic. The reason I don't believe in God isn't because he's not communist enough or not Nazi enough for me, or because I don't like the problems it raises with free will, or because I think beards look silly, it's because the evidence for the God Theory is bobbins.
It's not my fault that the Universe is doing such a good impression of something without any gods in it. If the evidence was good, of course I'd believe in God. I don't think many of the actual massmurderers on that list were, like me, provisionally atheist by way of skepticism, more that there were declaratively atheist by way of stuff I don't agree with.

carl · **#376** by **carl** » Nov 25, 2014 9:28 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
carl wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:The reason why it is wrong is because of the Silver Rule of Reciprocity....

1) Who or what is the authority to which you attribute this 'rule"?

No authority, Carl. That's the point. Similarly to evolution, the rule comes about by selection. A group whose individuals indulge more in this behavior is a more successful group than one which doesn't. No one needs to express it, codify it, or hold it as a cognitive position. It's reiteratively favoured.

Might a situation arise where getting 'rid' of an unproductive member of society - a disabled or chronically ill member, for example - might benefit the rest? This might make the group more successful by using and maintaining its resources only for those who can favorably contribute to its survival. Would you favor such a rule? Would it make a difference if that disabled member was a loved one?

Arnold Layne · **#377** by **Arnold Layne** » Nov 25, 2014 9:41 pm

FFS!

carl · **#378** by **carl** » Nov 25, 2014 9:51 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Such 'rules' of behavior are seen throughout the animal kingdom. For a very obvious example, think about how a mother (of any maternally rearing species) behaves with her child - she will sacrifice her time, resources and even well-being to provide for that child. Were she to not do that, then the child would not survive. Therefore, the behavior itself can be favoured solely on the grounds of the benefit it possesses in producing more individuals which do employ that behavior, and those who don't die out. The arbiter of such a 'rule' is survival.

How do we know that:

1) A behavior which benefits the survival of a group was in fact ingrained or maintained in that group BECAUSE it was beneficial? Certainly, if that beneficial behavior was not there, the group might not survive, but this alone does not demonstrate that such a beneficial trait survived in that group for that reason.

2) Any group, large or small, which exists and has observable beneficial behaviors demonstrates those behaviors as being beneficial, but this alone does not tell us HOW they became existent as a group in the first place and whether other similar species died off trying a different less beneficial behavior and failed.

Your reasoning appears to employ a 'hindsight is 20/20' type of reasoning: the ORIGIN of a particular behavior is connected to its beneficial qualities. We can look back and see how a behavior benefits a group, hence we can ASSUME the retention of that behavior and the survival of the group. This, however, is not really a scientific approach to validation or confirmation of your theory. It seems a bit circular, almost confirming itself.

Its like saying God is good, and since I had a good day, God must exist and indeed be good, otherwise, my day would not have been good.

This in turn confirms what we all know, that all faiths, atheism included, use faith-filled ideas in their thinking. The only difference is that some faiths include a god and some don't.

Fallible · **#379** by **Fallible** » Nov 25, 2014 11:18 pm

Atheism isn't a faith. Do at least try to get the basics right, carl.

Calilasseia · **#380** by **Calilasseia** » Nov 25, 2014 11:24 pm

carl wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
carl wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:The reason why it is wrong is because of the Silver Rule of Reciprocity....

1) Who or what is the authority to which you attribute this 'rule"?

No authority, Carl. That's the point. Similarly to evolution, the rule comes about by selection. A group whose individuals indulge more in this behavior is a more successful group than one which doesn't. No one needs to express it, codify it, or hold it as a cognitive position. It's reiteratively favoured.

Might a situation arise where getting 'rid' of an unproductive member of society - a disabled or chronically ill member, for example - might benefit the rest?

This is hugely contingent upon how one defines "benefit". Stephen Hawking might not have been able to perform much in the way of physical labour over the past 40 years, but he's one of the few people on the planet capable of performing supergravity calculations in his head. But I suspect I'm not the only one here, who is aware of the manner in which supernatuaralists think that simplistic apologetic fabrications, purportedly constitute "gotchas" for those of us who don't treat unsupported mythological assertions as fact. Those of us who apply actual thought to the relevant questions, routinely discover that these purported "gotchas", are nothing more than desperate attempts to try and make the treatment of unsupported mythological assertions as fact, supposed discoursively "respectable".

carl wrote:This might make the group more successful by using and maintaining its resources only for those who can favorably contribute to its survival.

Funny how supernaturalists seem to think in such simplistic terms, isn't it?

Oh wait, the rest of us recognise, once again, that "benefit" comes in many forms. See above.

Plus, there's the little matter of the empathy and desire for social cohesion that is a part of our evolutionary heritage. There's a wealth of peer reviewed literature devoted to the evolutionary benefits of altruism and co-operation. But I suspect you've never read any of this.

carl wrote:Would you favor such a rule?

No. See above for the reasons.

carl wrote:Would it make a difference if that disabled member was a loved one?

My above answer renders this question null and void.

carl wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Such 'rules' of behavior are seen throughout the animal kingdom. For a very obvious example, think about how a mother (of any maternally rearing species) behaves with her child - she will sacrifice her time, resources and even well-being to provide for that child. Were she to not do that, then the child would not survive. Therefore, the behavior itself can be favoured solely on the grounds of the benefit it possesses in producing more individuals which do employ that behavior, and those who don't die out. The arbiter of such a 'rule' is survival.

How do we know that:

1) A behavior which benefits the survival of a group was in fact ingrained or maintained in that group BECAUSE it was beneficial? Certainly, if that beneficial behavior was not there, the group might not survive, but this alone does not demonstrate that such a beneficial trait survived in that group for that reason.

Are you serious?

If the absence of a beneficial trait results in the death of the population, then by definition, that trait is massively positively selected for. :roll:

carl wrote:2) Any group, large or small, which exists and has observable beneficial behaviors demonstrates those behaviors as being beneficial, but this alone does not tell us HOW they became existent as a group in the first place

Which of course is a separate question. But conflation is a frequently observed supernaturalist apologetic tactic.

Of course, even organisms leading largely solitary lifestyles, have to engage in some degree of co-operative behaviour at some point in their lives, even if the occasions when this occurs are centred solely upon mating. I'm tempted to ask you to go and pick up some basic biology textbooks at this juncture. But the moment additional co-operative behavior confers a benefit, and results in increased offspring being produced by the co-operating organisms, then once again, by definition, that co-operative behaviour is positively selected for. That behaviour eventually becomes a dominant feature because of this.

carl wrote:and whether other similar species died off trying a different less beneficial behavior and failed.

Well for this, we rely upon observational data. But I don't suppose you'll let this elementary fact sway you from your apologetics.

carl wrote:Your reasoning appears to employ a 'hindsight is 20/20' type of reasoning: the ORIGIN of a particular behavior is connected to its beneficial qualities.

Well once again, we're deep into the territory of what constitutes "benefit" in a particular set of circumstances, and how powerful that benefit is. Once again, there are biology textbooks you can learn about this from.

carl wrote:We can look back and see how a behavior benefits a group, hence we can ASSUME the retention of that behavior and the survival of the group.

Er, no. Once again, if failure to deploy a particular behaviour, in accordance with your nebulous apologetic example above, results in the extinction of the population failing to do so, then we have a nice body of observational evidence pointing to the benefit of that behaviour.

You do realise that it's possible to run computer simulations of this, and observe the outcome?

carl wrote:This, however, is not really a scientific approach to validation or confirmation of your theory. It seems a bit circular, almost confirming itself.

We leave circular reasoning to apologetics.

carl wrote:Its like saying God is good, and since I had a good day, God must exist and indeed be good, otherwise, my day would not have been good.

Poppycock. Oh wait, we have plenty of evidence for deleterious traits being eliminated from populations, and beneficial traits preserved. Read any of the peer reviewed literature devoted to this, have you?

carl wrote:This in turn confirms what we all know, that all faiths, atheism included

Yawn, yawn, yawn, here we go again with the "atheism is a faith" canard. Bullshit. NOT treating unsupported assertions as fact is the very antithesis of faith. Do learn this elementary lesson.

carl wrote:use faith-filled ideas in their thinking.

Bollocks. Go and read the peer reviewed literature.

carl wrote:The only difference is that some faiths include a god and some don't.

Bollocks.

Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Re: Are Genocides Associated with Atheists?

Who is online