Without God is life meaningless?

estebancambias

AND OTHER RANDOM THOUGHTS.


I think this might belong on the Philosophy forum, but I sort of like your answers.

I will do my best to construct this as best I possibly can, but I'm basically just trashing out ideas, so sorry for the lack of coherence(Yes more than than usual)

Perhaps a more appropriate title would be ''Is Human life truly worthless''?

Look, I know in modern society we are thought about equality, and how everybody is the same, but in Scientific terms is this the case?

If Evolution is unforgiving, then is the harsh reality that a 6''5 ****house more ''fit'' than someone like Hawking?
(I know evolution is not unforgiving per se, as it has no goal, so it does not intend to be cruel or anything...lol) but intelligence only matters to humans, because we take pride in intelligence. In the greater scheme of things, intelligence means **** all. So in a sense, is what is on the outside what really matters?

Ok, so if you say ''well no, Hawkins had children so he succesfully passed on his genes'' but does that not pose another question?

It could be said that the 'true' meaning of life is to ensure the survival of the specie, however does that leave the individuals life of little consequence?

Surely if the person has already reproduced, the person is a drain on resources.

Could it be said disabled people are a drain on resources?( God I don't believe this)


Also, is the fact that the western world produces more food than it needs, a mere example of survival of the fittest? While the western world is 'greedy' and has mastered the environment, other less fortunate people struggle to eat one meal a week.

I would be interested in your response to my following ''theory''.

It is accepted that the world is over-populated right? Some loons claim that the number of humans that the environment is able to sustain is around 300 million. These same loons advocate the killing of billions of people to achieve this.

Don't you think in an ideal world, a belief that we were all placed here magically 'one by one' means that each individual is of importance?

Has someone said in my other lame thread ''morality is fickle'' then how can we chastise someone who breaks these loose morals? If killing for example is natural, if stealing for example is natural, is it fair these people face punishment?
As I mentioned, I don't know if Robin(I think) was taking the piss, but perhaps we have evolved to accept killing someone is wrong.


Ok, well I'm tired, so I'll stop now. Seriously I am just interested. Come on, don't do any of this 'LOL' crap. I'm more interested in how you reply. I'm sorry if some of the sentences are difficult to get your head around. As I said, I'm writing as I'm thinking.

monkeyfudge

You meander a little through a few things there... but I'll give a response to your final point.

Sure murder and stealing come naturally... and are generally out of a perceived necessity in the eyes of the perpetrator.

But one of the important parts of human evolution is the creation of the community. Banding together makes it easier to survive as a species. That community cannot function properly if murder and stealing are tolerated.

estebancambias

monkeyfudge wrote: »

You meander a little through a few things there... but I'll give a response to your final point.

Sure murder and stealing come naturally... and are generally out of a perceived necessity in the eyes of the perpetrator.

But one of the important parts of human evolution is the creation of the community. Banding together makes it easier to survive as a species. That community cannot function properly if murder and stealing are tolerated.

Ah....makes sense.

This probably belongs on Yahoo Answers as opposed to Boards really.

JC 2K3

We don't know if life is meaningless or not.

The word "fittest" in the phrase "survival of the fittest" does not refer to physical fitness. Humans are physically inferior to many other animals, it is our intelligence that makes us "fitter" than other animals.

In any case, evolution is irrelevant to the present. It doesn't matter if individuals' lives are of little consequence in the grand scheme of things, the fact is that we exist, and most of us don't want to die, nor do we want to kill others who are potentially a "drain on resources". We naturally want to live long, productive, happy lives, and generally wish the same on other people. Whether this is meaningless or not depends on your definition of "meaning".

estebancambias

JC 2K3 wrote: »

We don't know if life is meaningless or not.

The word "fittest" in the phrase "survival of the fittest" does not refer to physical fitness. Humans are physically inferior to many other animals, it is our intelligence that makes us "fitter" than other animals.

In any case, evolution is irrelevant to the present. It doesn't matter if individuals' lives are of little consequence in the grand scheme of things, the fact is that we exist, and most of us don't want to die, nor do we want to kill others who are potentially a "drain on resources". We naturally want to live long, productive, happy lives, and generally wish the same on other people. Whether this is meaningless or not depends on your definition of "meaning".

Thanks. I really like this answer.

Nerin

JC 2K3 wrote: »

We don't know if life is meaningless or not.

The word "fittest" in the phrase "survival of the fittest" does not refer to physical fitness. Humans are physically inferior to many other animals, it is our intelligence that makes us "fitter" than other animals.

In any case, evolution is irrelevant to the present. It doesn't matter if individuals' lives are of little consequence in the grand scheme of things, the fact is that we exist, and most of us don't want to die, nor do we want to kill others who are potentially a "drain on resources". We naturally want to live long, productive, happy lives, and generally wish the same on other people. Whether this is meaningless or not depends on your definition of "meaning".

good answer, i like this.
imo life is not necessarily meaningless at all, no matter what religion or belief you have. To "be" is enough. you can make your own meaning. whether you are right or wrong can generally not be disproved, because it is your personal meaning.
we could all kill ourselves right now,but we dont, because that is not the meaning of our lives.
{waffle waffle} i dont think im making sense...

monkeyfudge

There's also the concept behind 'memes'

It's not only genetic material that we reproduce, but also ideas. We're compelled to pass on ideas to other people, and in doing so the ideas and concepts mutate and become new ideas. And it's this process that can give a conscious human mind a sense of purpose.

Zillah

estebancambias wrote: »

I will do my best to construct this as best I possibly can, but I'm basically just trashing out ideas, so sorry for the lack of coherence(Yes more than than usual)

Actually this is by far the best post you've made on this forum. You raise a number of issues that I think a lot of people have. Its important that we address such issues if people are to understand atheism.

I don't have time right now but I intend on giving you a more full response later.

Zombrex

estebancambias wrote: »

Look, I know in modern society we are thought about equality, and how everybody is the same, but in Scientific terms is this the case?

Equality in terms of civil rights does not mean equal in terms of physical make up, which is what science deals with.

Equality doesn't mean we are all physically equal, it means we should all have the same equal rights.

estebancambias wrote: »

If Evolution is unforgiving, then is the harsh reality that a 6''5 ****house more ''fit'' than someone like Hawking?

Possibly

But again this has little bearing on the civil rights concept of equality. Hawkings doesn't have less civil rights because he would be considered less evolutionary fit.

It is also important to remember that it is very difficult to decide evolutionary fitness before natural selection takes place. For all we know Hawkings may have physical traits that actually enhance his fitness in ways we don't realize. When it comes to evolution the proof is in the eating, there are so many variables with natural selection that the only way to be sure what is or is not "fit" is to place the organism in the environment.

Hawking after all has produced children, were as 6"5 man may not have.

estebancambias wrote: »

In the greater scheme of things, intelligence means **** all. So in a sense, is what is on the outside what really matters?

Intelligence means a great deal in terms of evolutionary fitness. Hawkings is only alive today, able to communicate with the outside world, due to are intelligence. All that has an effect on evolution. Human intelligence has had a massive effect on evolution of humans and other animals.

estebancambias wrote: »

It could be said that the 'true' meaning of life is to ensure the survival of the specie, however does that leave the individuals life of little consequence?

The "true meaning of life" is an out dated religious concept. In reality life has no meaning beyond what we, as humans, assign to it in the context that we are looking.

Evolution has no meaning, but it does have requirements. For evolution to take place it is necessary that organisms reproduce. If this didn't take place evolution wouldn't take place.

estebancambias wrote: »

Surely if the person has already reproduced, the person is a drain on resources.

Everyone is a drain on resources. Life itself, by its very definition, is a drain on resources because it takes input and outputs in a way that it cannot be inputed again in that format. So it eventually uses up the inputs.

But since when did being a drain on resources become a bad thing?

estebancambias wrote: »

It is accepted that the world is over-populated right? Some loons claim that the number of humans that the environment is able to sustain is around 300 million. These same loons advocate the killing of billions of people to achieve this.

That is quite what the "loon" said, though he has been misquoted a good number of times.

estebancambias wrote: »

Don't you think in an ideal world, a belief that we were all placed here magically 'one by one' means that each individual is of importance?

Not really. Religious people, like Christians, like to go on about how if God made us that means our lives are meaningful and important. But their own religion seems to contrary to that, given that existence on Earth seems to simply be a waiting room for the after life, either heaven or hell. Life, at least life on Earth, seems rather pointless if one accepts Christianity.

estebancambias wrote: »

Has someone said in my other lame thread ''morality is fickle'' then how can we chastise someone who breaks these loose morals? If killing for example is natural, if stealing for example is natural, is it fair these people face punishment?

But "fair" is just a moral concept as well. If one accepts that morality if fickle then one must also accept that their concept of fair is fickle. So why not just go with it?

estebancambias wrote: »

As I mentioned, I don't know if Robin(I think) was taking the piss, but perhaps we have evolved to accept killing someone is wrong.

We have evolved to accept that killing someone is wrong.

18AD

estebancambias wrote: »

Has someone said in my other lame thread ''morality is fickle'' then how can we chastise someone who breaks these loose morals? If killing for example is natural, if stealing for example is natural, is it fair these people face punishment?
As I mentioned, I don't know if Robin(I think) was taking the piss, but perhaps we have evolved to accept killing someone is wrong.

Well, as an example, without law if someone was killed there would probably result an eye for an eye mentality until everyone is dead or everyone hated the person that was killed and that's as far as it went.
But with a communal structure the powers that be take the license to kill away from the individual so they can no longer make their own moral judgements. Then this sometimes gets out of hand and the rulers abuse their power of moral making and we end up with war and reducing world population etc...

Punishment is fair because it is also natural.

If Evolution is unforgiving, then is the harsh reality that a 6''5 ****house more ''fit'' than someone like Hawking?
(I know evolution is not unforgiving per se, as it has no goal, so it does not intend to be cruel or anything...lol) but intelligence only matters to humans, because we take pride in intelligence. In the greater scheme of things, intelligence means **** all. So in a sense, is what is on the outside what really matters?

Being intelligent has it's survival advantages in this day and age. If you're smart you get paid etc... and can sustain yourself. Whereas in older times you had to be fit to catch your food. Then later to cultivate your food.

Surely if the person has already reproduced, the person is a drain on resources.

Could it be said disabled people are a drain on resources?( God I don't believe this)

If someone has reproduced they may do so again.

If anyone has nothing to offer society while taking from it, then they are by definition a drain on resources. However in todays society, where things are plentiful, it's not too much of a concern. But when it comes down to it, if there's a shortage, these people probably won't survive.

Don't you think in an ideal world, a belief that we were all placed here magically 'one by one' means that each individual is of importance?

Yes. But I think we should be smart about how much magic we let happen. If everyone's f*cking like rabbits there's gonna be a huge bottleneck of resources eventually.
Things like condemning the use of contraceptives are unintelligent.

This is where intelligence is, again, a survival device!

''Is Human life truly worthless''?

No. But it's not worthy either. Worth is a human definition which doesn't exist beyond the mind.

Be the best you can be!
AD.

Dades

+1 to what Zillah said, btw.

Without God life is meaningless? Without God no pre-defined meaning has been given to us... i.e. there is no single purpose or reason for any of us to exist. I think this is one of the inescapable conclusions of disbelief in a god, coupled with the evolutionary process.

However humans have evolved enough now to create their own meaning. Our self-awareness, empathy and sense of community can all contrive to provide a real "meaning", rather than a religious one.

I can never quite understand what (for example) the Christian "meaning" of life is anyway. To get yourself to heaven? To worship God? They're not meanings - they're goals or commands. Did God ever explain why he made the universe?

Dave!

estebancambias wrote: »

Surely if the person has already reproduced, the person is a drain on resources.

What if their offspring dies? If the 'goal' of evolution is the propagation of genes, then it would be prudent to ensure that your genes have the best chance of survival, and so the more kids the better!

pH

If Evolution is unforgiving, then is the harsh reality that a 6''5 ****house more ''fit'' than someone like Hawking?
(I know evolution is not unforgiving per se, as it has no goal, so it does not intend to be cruel or anything...lol) but intelligence only matters to humans, because we take pride in intelligence. In the greater scheme of things, intelligence means **** all. So in a sense, is what is on the outside what really matters?

I think you severely underestimate intelligence and its importance to survival. Taking a simplistic example comparing a severely disabled man to a wrestler you arrive at a very simplistic conclusion "intelligence means **** all" which clearly is untrue as the spread of early humans indicates.

Intelligence brings tool use, planning, tactics, communication. So when you compare the scrawny geek with the WWE wrestler in a fight, maybe the geek just used his smarts not to be there, or made a weapon.

Also in social communal animals like we are, intelligent folks have a place. Sure the big guy in the tribe could probably kill the smart guy, but why? It would have been to his advantage to have someone around that could make better weapons/houses/tools or a better planner etc. Therefore it might even be plausible to suggest that "respect for intelligence" might even have been selected for in our evolutionary past, those who accepted and protected weaker-smarter members of their tribe did better overall than those who didn't (Though this does seem to be at odds with children's "natural" ability to pick on and bully the geeks and the less fir - cultural or evolutionary who knows).

robindch

Is life without Bertie after the 6th of May going to be meaningful?

See here for anybody who's not yet heard the news

estebancambias

robindch wrote: »

Is life without Bertie after the 6th of May going to be meaningful?

See here for anybody who's not yet heard the news

*Comic Book Guy voice*

Nooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God speed Bartholomew...God speed.

Ekancone

I couldn't be bothered reading the OP's post, but in short I believe that life without the promise of an afterlife is even more precious and important and has the most meaning possible compared to any other scenario. The reasons why should be obvious.

Dades

daithifleming wrote: »

I couldn't be bothered reading the OP's post.

Your loss - was quite interesting!

estebancambias

daithifleming wrote: »

I couldn't be bothered reading the OP's post, but in short I believe that life without the promise of an afterlife is even more precious and important and has the most meaning possible compared to any other scenario. The reasons why should be obvious.

To be honest despite what the title may say, the relation to ''without God'' is minimal in my actual post.

Ekancone

estebancambias wrote: »

To be honest despite what the title may say, the relation to ''without God'' is minimal in my actual post.

Ok, I will give it a scan once I am less lethargic!

adamd164

I'll answer this as concisely as possible, bearing in mind that I feel you're talking out your hole and trying to dress it up as a serious topic.

estebancambias wrote: »

Perhaps a more appropriate title would be ''Is Human life truly worthless''?

Yes, that would be a better way of putting it I'd say. I hate hearing people ask if life has a "meaning", since the question is a total and utter non-sequitur.

estebancambias wrote: »

Look, I know in modern society we are thought about equality, and how everybody is the same, but in Scientific terms is this the case?

No, any two members of any given species (save for identical twins) are scientifically different.

(bear in mind also that science makes no comment on who is "better" than who. It merely shows that a difference exists. Anything else is human conjecture.)

estebancambias wrote: »

Ok, so if you say ''well no, Hawkins had children so he succesfully passed on his genes'' but does that not pose another question?

Yes, you could indeed say that, and you'd be correct. Fitness = fecundity. If you have children, then you are evolutionarily "fit". There's nothing more to it. And no, it poses no more questions.

estebancambias wrote: »

It could be said that the 'true' meaning of life is to ensure the survival of the specie, however does that leave the individuals life of little consequence?

Whoa, survival of the species? That's what they call group selectionism; and is largely refuted in scientific circles. Survival of the gene is what it's all about.

estebancambias wrote: »

Surely if the person has already reproduced, the person is a drain on resources.

That's answered by my above response.

estebancambias wrote: »

Also, is the fact that the western world produces more food than it needs, a mere example of survival of the fittest? While the western world is 'greedy' and has mastered the environment, other less fortunate people struggle to eat one meal a week.

If fat person X has as many children as thin, hungry person Y, then they are equally fit.

estebancambias wrote: »

It is accepted that the world is over-populated right?

Some would say it is already, I think most would simply say that it's heading in that direction.

estebancambias wrote: »

Some loons claim that the number of humans that the environment is able to sustain is around 300 million. These same loons advocate the killing of billions of people to achieve this.

Don't you think in an ideal world, a belief that we were all placed here magically 'one by one' means that each individual is of importance?

What are you getting at? These loons would have no evolutionary basis for their actions, if that's your point. And no, I don't think any quixotic sky demagogues would be of importance.

estebancambias wrote: »

Has someone said in my other lame thread ''morality is fickle'' then how can we chastise someone who breaks these loose morals?

I'll leave whoever made the statement answer what seems to be a straw man thrown in their direction here.

DinoBot

Without God does life have meaning........

Tonight my son asked me what happens when he dies.

I told him he will be put in the ground and dirt put on top of him and the worms will eat his rotten body.

I didn't have the heart to tell him that he is going to spend eternity in hell :rolleyes:

Ekancone

DinoBot wrote: »

Meaning of life... i dont know.

But tonight my son asked me what happens when he dies.

I told him he will be put in the ground and dirt put on top of him and the worms will eat his rotten body.

I didn't have the heart to tell him that he is going to spend eternity in hell :rolleyes:

Falsedichotomytastic!

18AD

adamd164 wrote: »

(save for identical twins)

This is no longer believed to be true:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html
http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(08)00102-X

God bless science :rolleyes:

adamd164

Regardless, that has no effect my point, which was that the great majority (or all) individuals in and between species differ from one another.

Zombrex

DinoBot wrote: »

I didn't have the heart to tell him that he is going to spend eternity in hell :rolleyes:

LOL

estebancambias

Thanks everyone for your answers.

Wicknight by the way I'm not under estimating intelligence at all, what I mean is some 18 year old who thinks he/she is an expert on Nietzsche is not ''more fit''.

Oh and cheers Dades and Zillah.:D However I hate when I read over my threads, I always think they come across better while I'm writing them, but then when I read back I'm like, what the hell was that.

Zombrex

estebancambias wrote: »

Wicknight by the way I'm not under estimating intelligence at all, what I mean is some 18 year old who thinks he/she is an expert on Nietzsche is not ''more fit''.

Well the flaw you are probably making is trying to work out who is or isn't "more fit"

The environment decides. If I walk out in front of a bus tomorrow because I get a speck of dirt in my eye that would have been stopped by your slightly longer eye lashes, you are "more fit" than me.

There are two many variables to accurately look at who is or is not fit for living in their environment.

estebancambias

Ah, yeah I get ye.

I like the analogy of the eyelashes.

adamd164

Anyone ever notice how it's the religious who bring up social Darwinism?

As PZ Myers mentioned recently, it's actually got nothing to do with Darwin's work -- the phenomena of inheritence of characteristics and of unequal survival were known long before he hit the scene. Darwin's innovation was to show how the result is directed evolution over generations.

Either way, I'm never sure what the inference is: that we should stop teaching a scientific fact that - like all others - makes no comment on how to live one's life? Outrageous if so. In Dawkins' words, social Darwinism is the definition of how not to run a society.

estebancambias

I think its bad knowledge if someone links Social Darwinism with Darwin. I admit, I did. However, when I read up on Darwin I realised how stupid I was. This is a quote from Darwin:


Maby its not a problem in Ireland, but I think in America for sure Social Darwinism should be one of the first things debunked in a Science class. If anything it belongs in a Business Studies Class.

iUseVi

estebancambias wrote: »

I think its bad knowledge if someone links Social Darwinism with Darwin. I admit, I did. However, when I read up on Darwin I realised how stupid I was. This is a quote from Darwin:


Maby its not a problem in Ireland, but I think in America for sure Social Darwinism should be one of the first things debunked in a Science class. If anything it belongs in a Business Studies Class.

Missing quote?! :cool:

estebancambias

Ok USE I am going to have to kill you. LOL.

The quote I actually had in mind had hints of racism, so I decided not to post it.

iUseVi

estebancambias wrote: »

Ok USE I am going to have to kill you. LOL.

The quote I actually had in mind had hints of racism, so I decided not to post it.

:eek:

adamd164

Darwin lived in the mid 20th century. It was a different time; there were many far worse than him for bigotry. Regardless, that's a cheap ad hominem with absolutely no relevance to how we should construe the fact of evolution. It wouldn't matter if Darwin was a maniacal serial killer. It would not somehow throw evolution into question. It's like saying that because Newton was a complete and utter bastard we should discount the force of gravity!

Ekancone

adamd164 wrote: »

Darwin lived in the mid 20th century. It was a different time; there were many far worse than him for bigotry. Regardless, that's a cheap ad hominem with absolutely no relevance to how we should construe the fact of evolution. It wouldn't matter if Darwin was a maniacal serial killer. It would not somehow throw evolution into question. It's like saying that because Newton was a complete and utter bastard we should discount the force of gravity!

iUseVi

adamd164 wrote: »

Darwin lived in the mid 20th century. It was a different time; there were many far worse than him for bigotry. Regardless, that's a cheap ad hominem with absolutely no relevance to how we should construe the fact of evolution. It wouldn't matter if Darwin was a maniacal serial killer. It would not somehow throw evolution into question. It's like saying that because Newton was a complete and utter bastard we should discount the force of gravity!

mid-19th century. I know you knew that, just a typo!

Ekancone

Lol!

adamd164

Not every typing mistake has to be a slip-of-the-finger, you know. Obviously I know he lived in the 19th century: my entire point about racism would have been fairly meaningless otherwise, no?

iUseVi

adamd164 wrote: »

Not every typing mistake has to be a slip-of-the-finger, you know. Obviously I know he lived in the 19th century: my entire point about racism would have been fairly meaningless otherwise, no?

Eh? Sorry don't get that. What has Darwin living in the 20th century got to do with racism? (Yes I am a little slow!;))

adamd164

What has Darwin got to do with the question of social politics at all?

iUseVi

adamd164 wrote: »

What has Darwin got to do with the question of social politics at all?

touché!!

Dave!

It's hardly important if Darwin was a racist or not, or if he was into water sports and liked dressing in women's clothes......... It's irrelevent

Splendour

Wicknight wrote: »

We have evolved to accept that killing someone is wrong.

Where does this thinking come from? Is it wrong by law or wrong morally?

In some parts of the world it's legal have prisoners executed. Is this killing right or wrong?

estebancambias

DaveMcG wrote: »

It's hardly important if Darwin was a racist or not, or if he was into water sports and liked dressing in women's clothes......... It's irrelevent

I don't think its relevant, I don't think he was racist either.

"I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character. It is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly toward him; such cheerful, open honest expressions & such fine muscular bodies; I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; & considering the enormous healthy looking black population, it will be wonderful if at some future day it does not take place."

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

Where does this thinking come from? Is it wrong by law or wrong morally?

It isn't thinking, its instinct. I comes from evolution, and manifests itself in the form of emotions, such as guilt.

There have been some very interesting studies done in times of war over how bad humans are at actually killing people. We have a large number of intinctive biological systems set up to stop us killing others.

While it obviously doesn't apply to everyone (biological systems don't manifest themselves the same in everyone) it seems that the majority of humans find killing of other people (or even animals they identify as possessing personality) very difficult, to the point that in times of war this can lead to strong mental problems. After the D-Day landings medical doctors found that the only people not effected by the prolonged engagements were those who were probably psychotic already.

Splendour wrote: »

In some parts of the world it's legal have prisoners executed. Is this killing right or wrong?

I believe it is morally wrong, yes. Others rationalise that it isn't. But I believe they are wrong as well.

The issue that someone humans have is that they feel this isn't good enough. They require a higher authority to decide what is or is not wrong in the same way that a child may look to his parents (God the Father) to make moral rulings when they themselves are unsure or nervous about having to decide themselves.

In reality though they are simply handing over to another group of humans, and often humans that didn't make particular good moral decisions in the first place (for example the Old Testament).

estebancambias

Sorry for the bump, but what is your opinion on this quote:

''Individuals are insignificant. Only the genes win at the end.''

Dave!

It may (I dunno) be true from a biological perspective, but we have well developed brains, so we can make of life what we wish.

pH

estebancambias wrote: »

Sorry for the bump, but what is your opinion on this quote:

''Individuals are insignificant. Only the genes win at the end.''

It looks like a poor attempt to take a quote from an evolutionary biologist made in a specific context and construe it as if he's talking about society and morals and advocating a society that doesn't "care" about the "individual".

Am I wrong?

Also it kind of depends on who "individuals are insignificant" to. To nature and natural selection as a process then yes, probably you could argue that, to the *author* or to *us* in general as humans? Then obviously not.

To a vengeful, spiteful genocidal God? Most definitely.

Dades

pH wrote: »

It looks like a poor attempt to take a quote from an evolutionary biologist made in a specific context and construe it as if he's talking about society and morals and advocating a society that doesn't "care" about the "individual".

Am I wrong?

Nope. That's exactly what I thought.

Exactly the kind of spin that twat from "Expelled" was spouting in the Youtube interview with Pat Robertson.

Zillah

You can't have an individual without genes. Personality is as much shaped by genes as is, say, the immune system. Both are altered by environment of course, but its a very theist sort of notion that the mind is some how exempt from phenotype.