Amadeus.
Active member
you are asking a lot of different questions so i will try to narrow it down.
The whole eye argument that was is used is pretty simply debunked. Here is a really good demonstration and explanation of that.
Morality is something we don't fully understand yet either. Many scientists believe it to be an evolutionary trait that developed when we were a much younger species. When we used to live in small tribes as early bipeds the chance of seeing someone again in your life was very large so doing something for them which would benefit them meant that you would be helped by them in the future (this developed a type of empathy. of course I'm giving a very simple explanation of this idea). Also think of morality like this, because this is one of the more popular ways to think about it. I as an animal have an interest to keep my species healthy and a live. I do not wish to kill people because if i keep killing people my species will become extinct. Just as a bunch of piranhas in a tank won't kill each other even if they are hungry. This is pretty basic stuff that has been dealt with since the enlightenment. You give me the terrible impression you have never read any of the arguments against your position on this.
It could be that all existence is a pointless joke, but it is not in fact possible to live one's everyday life as if this were so. - hitchens.
I dont dislike religious people personally i dislike their religion. It doesnt matter if they have come to a different conclusion religion is always striving towards a theocratic encroachment on free society . A quote from marx should do.
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower."
The whole eye argument that was is used is pretty simply debunked. Here is a really good demonstration and explanation of that.
Morality is something we don't fully understand yet either. Many scientists believe it to be an evolutionary trait that developed when we were a much younger species. When we used to live in small tribes as early bipeds the chance of seeing someone again in your life was very large so doing something for them which would benefit them meant that you would be helped by them in the future (this developed a type of empathy. of course I'm giving a very simple explanation of this idea). Also think of morality like this, because this is one of the more popular ways to think about it. I as an animal have an interest to keep my species healthy and a live. I do not wish to kill people because if i keep killing people my species will become extinct. Just as a bunch of piranhas in a tank won't kill each other even if they are hungry. This is pretty basic stuff that has been dealt with since the enlightenment. You give me the terrible impression you have never read any of the arguments against your position on this.
It could be that all existence is a pointless joke, but it is not in fact possible to live one's everyday life as if this were so. - hitchens.
I dont dislike religious people personally i dislike their religion. It doesnt matter if they have come to a different conclusion religion is always striving towards a theocratic encroachment on free society . A quote from marx should do.
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower."