Thing is Subman, that kind of crock of ignorant sh!t doesn't encourage any thought out reply. Your thread and that article just get what they're worth.

Unfortunately the article has no points to refute. There are no facts there - only opinion and innuendo. Enigma's first post was correct.

And I'm not even an atheist.

Look SUBMAN, there is no point in that article, it is all just baseless claims.
A diety is not required for free will, free will is just a byproduct of our ability for abstract thought which we have due to our brains having evolved the way they did.
As for morality, morals are set by a society, not a diety, and are not absolute. Hell, look back in history and you will see all kinds of diferent cultures where the morals have been different, but most share commonalities.

Now about that point in that article which claism that biology is pushing for social darwinism, that is nothing more than a strawman at best or inexcusable stupidity at worst. Inequality between humans is indeed a fact of life, but aknowleging that does not mean that humans with defects in some areas should be left to die.

As for biology seting morals, well, in some ways it does. Back in the past it has been more benefitial for the group of humans ancestors for some member of said group to sacrifice him/herself for the good of the group, thats where altruism traces it's roots. Similar behavior can be seen in other pack animals. From the verges of altruism it is not a big leap towards a more, so called moral, existance in the group because it is benefitial. You may want to take this as being selfish, which would be true to some extent, but doing something for the beterment of a group does not really count as selfishnes in my eyes, even if at the deepest biological level it is nothing more than ensuring the survival of ones genes, by some ammount, inside said group.

anyway, my entire post is a garbled mess, have fun reading.

Your post is a mess. What I get from it is that it is baseless claims without it going into whatever. Try to break it out in your next post.

If you took Biology in school, you know that Darwin was never able to answer many questions based around human nature. For one, humans should not have the capability to help out others that are of lesser fortune because this does not fit the model.

The article above does an excellent job explaining why. That is why you should attack it on a point by point basis.

-S

Well biology has moved on now from the point darwin lived, there have been a lot thats has been discovered from that point onwards. Allso helping others does fit the model because helping others does improve the group as a whole whick increases survival chanses of the group. Empathy and altruism have not gone anywhere.

Actually, Subman, the article explains nothing, unless, as already stated, you have a prior belief.

What you think Darwin did or didn't prove is irrelevant. Morality can be explained as a function of reason and observation. The Christian could be right. So could the Atheist. There is no proof, nor even real evidence, one way or the other.

The problem is that, as with most arguments of this kind, you are already convinced of your rightness, and that's proof enough for you. That holds true for some of the people who oppose you as well, but you seem to try to flaunt your "correctness" as if it somehow places you above others.

Laughing at people who disagree with you, and demeaning them, is not a sign of superiority, or rightness. Or even of Christianity.

I don't believe deities, souls or 'self's/Cartesian dualism, free will or the ontological
existence of morality as a thing outside out minds.

I don't think these things exist for me and I don't think they exist for you either.

I make my moral judgments via the rational implementation of my faculty for
compassion. This is morality so far as I can see.


However:
I do not believe there is a single, identifiable 'I' whom makes the judgment. The
decision is made by various separate parts of my brain which communicate with each
other and produce the illusion of self. There is no evidence for an actual 'self' or 'soul'.

I do not believe the judgment I make is a result of 'free will'. No more so than apples
chose to fall to the ground. The decision is clearly not random in the way a random
number generator picks a number and neither is it fully predictable in the way a
calculator answers a question, but that dies not mean it is 'free'. There is no
evidence for free will.

I do not believe that the judgment can be consider correct or incorrect. Objects or
events can't have moral properties in the same way they have properties of width,
length, duration, volume, etc. There is no evidence for the ontological existence of
moral properties.

I do not believe that my judgments are smiled upon by some deity. No more so than
I believe my judgments are smiled or frowned upon by a goat in the sky or a
chocolate teapot circling the sun. There is no evidence for deity, sky goats or
Russell's teapot.

If you think that makes me morally bankrupt, then it makes everyone on Earth
morally bankrupt.
If you think you are not morally bankrupt, I'm just waiting for the Atheist rebuttal on
this one! ;)

Once again, I make my moral judgments via the rational implementation of my
faculty for compassion.
This is morality so far as I can see.

If someone would make a decision against their rational implementation of compassion
because the read something different in the Bible, Quran, dictionary, etc then
that is what I consider morally bankrupt.

I'm afraid some of you have not looked death in its eyes, known sheer terror....and what it means to meet your maker......when you're staring death down, what are you going to do...........cry for your mommy?

Pfft, quicksave.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Brilliant....

We have a winner!:rotfl: It was on CNN, so it is true.

I don't think fear is a good reason to believe in God. The bible certainly does, but I don't.

Well, I have. Not a violent death, but I was told by a doctor that my death was very
likely. I had plenty of time to stare the prospect down and have known plenty of others
who have and are no longer with us. In my experience the usual reaction is quiet and
dignified stoicism and that is how I did my best to see it through.
What is your point?

If the proof is in the pudding, I looked for proof, but all I found was bananas.

....if the bible told you to push babies off a cliffs; would you?