Shila

-> @SkepticalOne

Incoherent =/= clarity.

Are you going to explain yourself or not? Because you can’t expect me to agree with you by simply just calling my argument incoherent, so what are you trying to accomplish here?

--> @Shila

Remember that a very smart Jew once said, the Bible is a collection of honourable, but still primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

--> @Shila

As humans evolve their views in religion grow more sophisticated.

Have they though? People replaced the priest with Dr. Fauci and the religious book with the government mandates.

They have not changed remotely in the 6,000 years of human "evolution." If anything genetic research indicates that the average human from 6,000 years ago would have an equivalent IQ of 145 today. [1]

Of course, this is assuming genetics drives intelligence. Which is a whole debate in and of itself.

But the point is we are not more intelligent bow nor have we even really evolved at all in thousands of years, since the earliest records of humans (which happen to coincide with the tools that these archaeologists keep finding) we keep seeing the same levels of intelligence.

But anyways. Religious views have largely remained the same. People worshipped government in Ancient Egypt, and they worship it today. They worshipped polytheism back then, and they worship that today. Black and white magic was commonly practiced in ancient Rome, and it is commonly practiced today.

For example Jesus was a liar and lunatic to the Jews of his generation. They demanded Jesus be crucified. The Romans crucified Jesus.

But several centuries later Jesus from a dead crucified liar and lunatic evolved to be the God of the Roman Catholic Church and all of Christianity.

He still is considered a liar and a lunatic to the Jews of this generation. The Christians never considered him dead because 500 people saw him ascend into heaven after talking with them. 

There is also the whole empty tomb thing. We haven't found His body. They never found it. And they never will find it. Because He rose from the dead.

Thumbs are an evolutionary advantage. 

You can read that and move straight on hey? 

But 

Religion being a evo advant needs ALOT of ummm measuring one feels. 

I did get sidetracked for a good few hours thinking about how great RAPE IS ,  As To an evolutionary advantage. 

Hang on . 

Rape is a evolutionary advent. 

We worked that out before. 

Sooooooo Instead of saying . 

 ( Religion is an evolutionary advantage ) and having a statement like this mess with ones head 

 

Say it like this. 

( Rape is an evolutionary advantage )

then pauseeeeeeeeeeee for full effect 

' Then quickly  deliver '     ( religion is an evolutionary advantage )   bammmmmmmmmmmmmmm. 

Oh, I wasn’t necessarily putting a stamp of approval on all those pursuits/ideologies. The mention of North Korea and Soviet Union assures you of that, I hope. What I was implying is that in absence of religion, it is by necessity replaced with something, and an individual or society should be very cognizant of what that something is and its ramifications. I’m not saying this so much to you as I am to those who see religion unquestionably as a negative. There are many such people as this very thread shows…

--> @Shila

Facts and evidence are verifiable independently

but not independently of a mind

and also not without bias

--> @Shila

I am here to verify if  Atheists are hypocrites.

I would suggest that the above statement doesn't really make sense.

Nonetheless, do you derive satisfaction from verifying if?

--> @Shila

Certainly within a discussion forum.

The reason I'm here is because this  is a mentally stimulating and enjoyable exercise.

Why are you here?

Where did they get the needle and thread from?

Why would  GOD have provided sewing kit?

Not really.

Notwithstanding that the whole tree of knowledge thing is all about the human fascination with sexuality.

If GODDO really didn't want A and E to know, then why make a tree of knowledge available.

But you know the Bible is baloney don't you?

Perhaps you stated the above because it is actually you who hates atheists.

I personally love theists, because they have some fun ideas to discuss.

-> @Shila

Well, there is theistic data and we can all share it and conclude variously.

And some conclusions are labelled as atheist.

Which leads to contention. 

And one would hope that contention in a discussion forum would also lead to two way fun.

--> @Shila

Women not only get pregnant but have to carry the baby, feed and nurture it for a while.

Whereas the man need only ejaculate into a women and most do prematurely. But the burden of parenting is disproportionate. Hence the double standards.

the asymmetry comes from the ability to "opt out"

if the mother chooses to "opt out" this results in the death of the fetus

if the father chooses to "opt out" the consequences are much less dire

since the stakes are much lower for the father and much higher for the mother

why would the mother be given a chance to "opt out" while the father is given no such option ?

--> @Shila

Objectivity is not independent of mind. It is independent of personal feelings or beliefs and based only on facts and evidence.

Yes, and personal feelings or beliefs come from... Minds.

The assessment of what is objective necessarily requires a mind, that is something different.

--> @Shila

Where did they get the needle and thread from?

Why would  GOD have provided sewing kit?

@Poly.

That's because atheists hate theists.

Perhaps you stated the above because it is actually you who hates atheists.

I personally love theists, because they have some fun ideas to discuss.

-> @Tarik

Well I disagree, you see how easy that was 😉

SkepticalOne: Okay. You're disagreeing with the definition you provided. 😉

for those of you who believe in the religion known as evolution, i recommend you read some dr kent hovind. 

if u think evolution is real, you really think we came from an ameba and that we are related to bananas. if you ask any farmer, they will tell you that all their animals have only ever brought forth after their kind just as how god had said in the bible. is there ever a case wher ea dog gave birht to a cat? NO!!!!!!! a dog ONLY EVER GIVES BIRTH TO A DOG. 

as to why. we are taught this propaganda, well it's just a liberal ploy. 

also can any one of you evolution religous pastors tell me - do you think a dog can give birth to a non dog ?

This is exactly the kind of nonsense that's okay coming from some random dude on the internet but not from the lips of the President.

Abortion double standards

If it is the case that women can willingly engage in sex and subsequently abort the fetus because "her body is her choice", does it then follow that a male can impregnate a female and subsequently not pay child support because "his body his choice"? It is entirely possible that a male, after impregnating a women, regrets the choice, just as how women commonly experience such regret, so would it follow (on the grounds of consistency) that men ought to al have the right to abandon the child and not pay child support?

School systems should include LBTQ+ topics in their history and sex education

But .

But it isnt a argument. 

Becauseeeeeeeeee religion is an evolutionary advantage. 

Its a statement. 

It points out some benifits religion has.  

When you start to think about a evolutionary advantage you dont immediately think about ( biological evolution )

You just think about toe evolution. And you rarly talk about evolution and anything under a million years  .

 So again .

Sooooooooooo

 The statment should read.

Religion is an Biological evolutionary advantage.  

I mean, this whole argument assumes macroevolution is actually real.

The scientists over at scienceagainstevolution.org have some pretty convincing arguments that it isn't. Mainly that the earth cannot possibly be older than 2 billion years [1] [2] due to u238 decay times and the fact that uniformitarian dating methods are significantly flawed and based on a logical fallacy. [3] 

But, assuming the shaky premise that macroevolution exists, the argument is that religion was a mechanism that survived because it made people more altruistic and therefore less likely to kill each other because they feared retribution for their actions.

Look at the world around you for a minute and  ask yourself, do these people seem like kind, altruistic, loving individuals who will have my back and work collaboratively with me to advance the greater good? I'm sure that your answer will undoubtedly be "no effing way."

There is mounds of psychological research that proves that people, even many of those who are "religious," are selfish, pathological liars who cannot engage in basic empathy unless someone in authority forces them to with threat of punishment. In fact, the main reason most governments exist is because people got together and determined it was in their selfish best interest to have a third party to govern them because they knew they were completely incapable of governing themselves and being altruistic. And these same people then turn around and allow their governments to steal from them, control their every move, and send them off to die in a foreign war somewhere.

And you think that religion somehow was an evolutionary gene that stopped mass killing? Have you even read the history of the Catholic Church, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, basically any society that worshipped the emperor or ruler as a god or regent of God and therefore just let them do whatever it is they wanted?

And you think this somehow was an evolutionary advantage? 

IMHO, we are designed to worship because he world runs best when we worship God. Not just some random god that a person made up last week, but God proper. The one who actually changes our nature into altruistic, good people by making us new and giving us a new nature filled with love for each other. Man's natural impulses, even including religion, are selfish, hateful, lustful, and violent.

SOURCES:

[1] http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v16i10f.htm

[2] http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v16i11f.htm

[3] http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i3f.htm

You know what? I can honestly say that, these past 2 years, I haven't thought about Biden all that much. And I really haven't harbored that much hostility toward him either. And unlike perhaps some people, I can say this in reasonably good faith.

But after last night, fvck Joe Biden. 

After last night, I am a fellow "MAGA Republican" and I like to think that the entire party is united against the president's fascist bullying.

SkepticalOne: I'm not convinced indifference to survival is an evolutionary advantage.  

--> @Ehyeh

I've seen one of my friends actually get angry and go on a rant to me about the evils of god, simply over the fact we walked past a family where the mother was reading the bible to her child.

Polytheist-Witch: That's because atheists hate theists. They want us all to literally drop dead so they can bury us in religion along with it. I don't understand how more people don't get it. Imagine what your friend feels for his parents if they read the Bible. But he'll try to tell you he doesn't hate them. They lie all the time to family and friends to hide the fact that they hate them. You have no concept of how horrible they are.

--> @Shila

Polytheist-Witch: Do something with your death threats or fuck off, pussy.

--> @3RU7AL

how do you propose we measure love, you know, scientifically

Not sure you can.

--> @Ehyeh

--> @Shila

Sounds like you're projecting you're lack of care you felt in the household, Shila.

I've seen one of my friends actually get angry and go on a rant to me about the evils of god, simply over the fact we walked past a family where the mother was reading the bible to her child.

Well, you're calling me deprived there, shila. Once more, are you not projecting that you could of had more as a child?

Religion is an evolutionary advantage. 

Who could one possible put this statement  before apart from a religious forum ?    

--> @Shila

Sounds like you're projecting you're lack of care you felt in the household, Shila.

I've seen one of my friends actually get angry and go on a rant to me about the evils of god, simply over the fact we walked past a family where the mother was reading the bible to her child.

are you suggesting that love is some sort of object, you know, like a rock ?

I've seen one of my friends actually get angry and go on a rant to me about the evils of god, simply over the fact we walked past a family where the mother was reading the bible to her child.

 And if you indoctrinate someone into believing they will burn in hell from childhood to adult hood I am sure the numbers will increase daily. Your appeal to numbers is nonsense. 

--> @Shila

The New Testament was eyewitness accounts about Jesus in the Gospels.

collected and compiled 325 years after the fact

what we see, is that trump has default authority to classify at will. but even your article says only that there would be serious constitutional issues if a statute were passed. a statute was passed, which is cited above. we might assume that trump shouldn't be using classified material in a way that is detrimental to the USA. this is of course a judgment call, so executive authority and privilege would be here, but it's at best a murky issue. 

also, even if trump was cleared legally for what he did, you have to admit, that it at least sounds like he did the wrong thing by taking and hoarding those documents, right? just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. 

Science is replacing religion in almost every aspect.

Feeding millions.

Curing millions.

Giving hope to millions.

Answering questions that baffled mankind which religion was unable to solve.

Science can't make you stop fearing death. Science can't drag you out of the blackpill. Science can't make you a moral person.

Science is not a replacement for god(s).

 Objectivity means independent of the mind. Demonstrate that love is the standard for morality independent of the mind and that well being is not.

--> @Shila

Unfortunately you are to smart shila  to say the universe is no older then 10,000 years 

Functionally, regardless of whether the religion in question is true, it will solve issues that humans face. Namely:

(1) Creating an untouchable, unseeable leader who can never be caught in a scandal, contradiction or anything untoward (something that humans will never be able to rectify if they themselves are leaders, due to their imperfection).

(2) Adds mystical magic to morality so that it seems divine, rather than just an impulse. This is especially important for cause-driven people who want to feel like they are living with a real purpose. It also helps to prevent crimes of all natures.

(3) Quells fear of the unknown with answers to queries that scare humans (e.g. what happens after death? You go to Heaven or hell; you are reincarnated; you enter paradise etc.).

(4) Creates free labor as a religious zealot will gladly do things in the name of the divine, all the whilst making them feel good for doing so.

Without religion, there are important holes to fill, and I don't think Atheism or Agnosticism fill them. I think it could be said that humans currently need religion to function.

Religion helps people to survive. 

--> @3RU7AL

don't you have to have a "Y" chromosome in order to be considered "male" ?

SkepticalOne: No. 

--> @Deb-8-a-bull

Instead of  Religion is a ( evolutionary advantage )  

Can you perhaps reword it ?  

Dumb it down for me.

Religion helps people to survive.

Sooooooo. 

With this uncertainty in mind.  The TOE shouldn't be placed at the top of the scale of things you belive are so called "certainties" 

I mean, it doesn't need to be. 

Theists on the other hand have this problem proving a god exists.   yet it is the most important thing ever. 

It is the sole reason they are here.    They will follow the rules/ laws of that god exactly for the rest of their lives without questioning it. 

You can see what is happening hear hey ? 

--> @3RU7AL

Please tell me more about your fantastic world on magic fairy dust and unicorns.  

please explain to me what you mean by "science and logic"

please provide your personally preferred definition of "explain"

and

please provide your personally preferred definition of "mean"