I know I can Succeed with the Help of Jesus Christ

[fancymylotus]

What is this legend league thing

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Gandyy]

What is this legend league thing

its a video game that should never have been created.

 

[Mad Jack]

I really need to try this f****** game...


I think you're confusing atheism with nihilism. A lack of belief in theology doesn't equal a lack of belief in anything. I strongly disagree that fundamental western principles are derived from Christianity, which is what I think you're implying here. Rather, I would suggest that the Enlightenment played a greater part in that. Any overlap in moral doctrine seen between Enlightenment values and Christianity is almost always the fundamental stuff (don't rape, murder, etc.) which many secularists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, etc.) argue is probably more intuitive to our biology than anything.

I would also disagree that Christianity does more good than evil, all due respect, but that is another discussion entirely.

Atheism is the specific lack of belief in any sort of supernatural or higher power. It opens up the road to nihilism, but is not, in and of itself, nihilism.

 

[StudyLater]

What is this legend league thing

You take over someone's base or some **** by leading armies. Apparently it takes a super long time. And then if you win you get a dopamine high.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[fancymylotus]

its a video game that should never have been created.

What why

I wanna play it now

 

[fancymylotus]

You take over someone's base or some **** by leading armies. Apparently it takes a super long time. And then if you win you get a dopamine high.

Rinse and repeat.

I WANT TO TAKE OVER BASES. Would be a fun departure from my usual halo/cod/etc games

 

[Gandyy]

What why

I wanna play it now

Oh god....

@Mad Jack talk some sense into them.

 

[StudyLater]

Atheism is the specific lack of belief in any sort of supernatural or higher power. It opens up the road to nihilism, but is not, in and of itself, nihilism.

After it was shut when you were first taught about God.

 

[StudyLater]

its a video game that should never have been created.

I doubt the creators feel that way.

 

[StudyLater]

I WANT TO TAKE OVER BASES. Would be a fun departure from my usual halo/cod/etc games

No you don't need league. All you need is jesus.

K that's it. I just ended it perfectly. No more responses now.

 

[Mad Jack]

its a video game that should never have been created.

Gentleman Cho'gath humbly disagrees, good sir.

 

[StudyLater]

Oh my god I'm surrounded.

*leaves*

 

[Gandyy]

Gentleman Cho'gath humbly disagrees, good sir.

Man, we've talked about religion, star wars, star trek, Chinese food and league of legends in this one thread here on SDN.

Whats next?

 

[fancymylotus]

Man, we've talked about religion, star wars, star trek, Chinese food and league of legends in this one thread here on SDN.

Whats next?

trump?

 

[Gandyy]

trump?

Only bad things will come from that.

 

[fancymylotus]

Only bad things will come from that.

Although I am not a democrat, I have a personal interest in Hillz winning. ><

 

[Cyberdyne 101]

Although I am not a democrat, I have a personal interest in Hillz winning. ><

Are you and Hill brunch buddies?!

 

[efle]

I've missed a lot !

Zed - the original hedonists were theists! I should start telling people I worship Dionysus

MadJ - atheism has no moral code because value ethics and morality is an entirely separate realm in philosophy, people are just so used to a moral code being attached to religious beliefs that they confuse the two as somehow inseparable

 

[bc65]

Though shalt not kill is kind of a big commandment.

The commandment does not say "thou shalt not kill". The correct translation is "Don't murder".

 

[ZedsDed]

I've missed a lot !

Zed - the original hedonists were theists! I should start telling people I worship Dionysus

MadJ - atheism has no moral code because value ethics and morality is an entirely separate realm in philosophy, people are just so used to a moral code being attached to religious beliefs that they confuse the two as somehow inseparable

Whaaat I didn't know that. I bet they didn't worship a mean old Abrahamic God...

 

[Crayola227]

I really need to try this f****** game...


I think you're confusing atheism with nihilism. A lack of belief in theology doesn't equal a lack of belief in anything. I strongly disagree that fundamental western principles are derived from Christianity, which is what I think you're implying here. Rather, I would suggest that the Enlightenment played a greater part in that. Any overlap in moral doctrine seen between Enlightenment values and Christianity is almost always the fundamental stuff (don't rape, murder, etc.) which many secularists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, etc.) argue is probably more intuitive to our biology than anything.

I would also disagree that Christianity does more good than evil, all due respect, but that is another discussion entirely.

Ridiculous. Western Civilization is a fundamentally based on a Judeo-Christian worldview with a hefty influence from Classical Greek/Roman ideas. The Enlightenment came like 2500 years after Judaism.

Rewriting history isn't going to cut it.

That's like trying to explain the mores of present day Eastern Cultures without mentioning Buddhism.

I think most religious values are based in biology, but to act like major world religions can be ignored and in the telling of its history, and fast forwarding to the last 250 years as the sum story of its moral heritage?

And sure, anything good we might ascribe to religion can be explained some other way. Certainly the idea it's done more harm than good fits in with most theories of anthropology and behavior you might susbscribe to (sarcasm).

 

[Neutropix]

You do realize that many, many Christians are not opposed to science, philosophy, LGBTQ rights, or progressive thought, right? And that many of us view the Bible as allegorical and not literal? The number of ***holes in any given religion or group are general small and loud. For every Christian that agrees with the Westboro Baptist Church or the crazy ***holes that say 9/11 is America's fault for this or that progressive thing, there's dozens that think those people are ****ing crazy. The extreme bible thumping conservatives are the exception, not the norm. Think about it- numerically, 7 out of 10 people you meet is Christian. Do you honestly feel like 7 out of 10 people you meet are hateful bigots, hell bent on destroying progress lol?

Ah, then why be Christians at all? If you aren't going to follow the doctrine--picking and choosing as you please--then what is the point? I would disagree with your point that a small, outspoken group of Christians make the loudest noise. This is a subjective area I don't feel like arguing but even if you were objectively correct it still, in my mind, would not make up for the other 30% of a**holes.

In summary, what you're saying is,"Come on, you know we really don't believe all of that crazy stuff in the bible! We only believe that people should be good, God is watching over us, and we're going to heaven."

 

[Neutropix]

Wow. That was crazy. completely unwarranted and plain wrong.


1). I don't believe in public displays of faith. I am a nice Christian who wears my cross, never preaches about God in public and has never bothered anyone. In fact I said, "I can't even about this thread" - meaning I was surprised by it. The Ahab joke was tongue in cheek and I never expected you to take it as a personal attack. I thought you'd chuckle and get over it.

Your clan men are not allowed to kill, harm,.....

I'm black *******.

I don't have clan men because wtf that would be terrifying. I don't discriminate against women, children or lbq's ( transgender I'm still confused by). I love science, argue for evolution in church meetings, and am pro-abortions and women's rights.

And this is exactly, why I don't like evangelical atheists.

No, you for sure never heard of Moby Dick.

Name calling? Very un-Christian like of you, sinner.

As a Christian you should now forgive me by cleaning my feet and bringing me bread.

So basically you're everything the bible tells you you shouldn't be LOL? Can't you see how flawed your reasoning is? You're basically in it for possible handouts from Jesus via prayer and sanctuary after nature takes its course.

I'm starting to suspect you're 18 and am now regretting ever entertaining your nonsense in the first place.

 

[Neutropix]

I read most of your posts in this thread and don't you dare deny this... You are the biggest Joe Rogan/Sam Harris fanboy ever.... Amirite?

GOT MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

JOE ROGAN IS MY TRUE LORD AND SAVIOR ALL HAIL ONNIT PRODUX AND UFC. SAM HARRIS YOU HOLLOW SOULED SON OF A BITCH COME AND GIVE DADDY A HUG.

PS- Don't forget about Brendan Schaub, Bryan Callen, Neil Degrasse Tyson (agnostic), Dawkins, and Hitchens.

Also all members of the Ten Minute Podcast.

 

[Neutropix]

What is this legend league thing

Don't try it, babe. It's not worth it.

 

[Neutropix]

They will. But they will be philosophical. Transhumanists, naturalists, non-transhumanist futurists, luddites, and on and on. Mankind always finds a way to divide itself and hate one another. Religion is just a lens through which we have seen that capacity in the past, but even without it, we would find a way to do so in the future.

Transhumanism and AI would be two megaladon threads in and of themselves

 

[fancymylotus]

Don't try it, babe. It's not worth it.

...the bad weather here just woke me and saw I this, how is this thread still going and why are you people still awake?!

 

[Mad Jack]

MadJ - atheism has no moral code because value ethics and morality is an entirely separate realm in philosophy, people are just so used to a moral code being attached to religious beliefs that they confuse the two as somehow inseparable

That's kind of the point though- to be religious, one has to submit to some sort of moral code they believe to be the work of a higher authority. Atheism opens the possibility of having no moral code whatsoever. This is likely why religion is so prevalent in every culture that managed to stay together long enough to extend past prehistory- without a religion imposing a moral code upon people, many choose to become immoral (or to have what many of us would view as an evil sense of morality), leading to a less cohesive society that couldn't hold up to tribes that had shared values and a sense of purpose.

This isn't to say that atheists are incapable of morality or forming a cohesive society, but rather that doing so is much more difficult, as religion makes one cast aside their self interest in the name of a common belief, while atheism basically amounts to this life being the only one you've got, so if you sacrifice in the name of a common goal or the common good, you often have to do so in spite of your own interests with no other incentive but to know you are doing good. For many, that incentive is not enough. They need to believe in karma or a heaven or that if they are a good person some deity will reward their good deeds, because people are shortsighted, self-interested animals at the end of the day, most having little concept of reward beyond something that comes in the near future. Hence why we don't have a functional space exploration program, despite the fact that it could lead to a post-scarcity society, and that some of the most atheistic nations in the world have the capacity to fund such ventures (much of Europe, China, and Japan).

 

[Mad Jack]

Ah, then why be Christians at all? If you aren't going to follow the doctrine--picking and choosing as you please--then what is the point? I would disagree with your point that a small, outspoken group of Christians make the loudest noise. This is a subjective area I don't feel like arguing but even if you were objectively correct it still, in my mind, would not make up for the other 30% of a**holes.

In summary, what you're saying is,"Come on, you know we really don't believe all of that crazy stuff in the bible! We only believe that people should be good, God is watching over us, and we're going to heaven."

Doctrine is the interpretation of men. Why would you trust the words of man over the words you can read? Plus there's so many mistranslations, etc. I view very much of the Bible as an attempt to explain the universe and morality to a very primitive people, hence much of it being allegorical.

Of course, to any traditional conservatives, the only response such ideas would get would be

 

[efle]

That's kind of the point though- to be religious, one has to submit to some sort of moral code they believe to be the work of a higher authority. Atheism opens the possibility of having no moral code whatsoever. This is likely why religion is so prevalent in every culture that managed to stay together long enough to extend past prehistory- without a religion imposing a moral code upon people, many choose to become immoral (or to have what many of us would view as an evil sense of morality), leading to a less cohesive society that couldn't hold up to tribes that had shared values and a sense of purpose.

This isn't to say that atheists are incapable of morality or forming a cohesive society, but rather that doing so is much more difficult, as religion makes one cast aside their self interest in the name of a common belief, while atheism basically amounts to this life being the only one you've got, so if you sacrifice in the name of a common goal or the common good, you often have to do so in spite of your own interests with no other incentive but to know you are doing good. For many, that incentive is not enough. They need to believe in karma or a heaven or that if they are a good person some deity will reward their good deeds, because people are shortsighted, self-interested animals at the end of the day, most having little concept of reward beyond something that comes in the near future. Hence why we don't have a functional space exploration program, despite the fact that it could lead to a post-scarcity society, and that some of the most atheistic nations in the world have the capacity to fund such ventures (much of Europe, China, and Japan).

There have been religions built around war, sacrifice, etc - I'd say beliefs reflect the ethics present in a society, good or bad, rather than universally functioning as a source of good ethics necessary for social behavior. The reason religion springs up everywhere is because humans have a need to explain the unexplained about nature, death, place in the world etc, not because people need fear of god to exist together. And one of the easier counterpoints: if a religion teaches that you will be immediately forgiven for any wrongdoing upon asking for forgiveness, there isn't much deterrence. Hell is for people that believe differently than you, not for people who behave badly, so long as they say sorry. So the moral power of religion isn't much of a step up from no religion. In the end I think religion is much more an indicator of features in society than a causal player.

 

[NotWayneBrady]

Fun?? League's serious business. There's guys that do that **** professionally. I think they make more than docs in certain cases.

Pretty sure Bjergsen was living in a money castle at one point.

 

[ZedsDed]

Ridiculous. Western Civilization is a fundamentally based on a Judeo-Christian worldview with a hefty influence from Classical Greek/Roman ideas. The Enlightenment came like 2500 years after Judaism.

Rewriting history isn't going to cut it.

That's like trying to explain the mores of present day Eastern Cultures without mentioning Buddhism.

I think most religious values are based in biology, but to act like major world religions can be ignored and in the telling of its history, and fast forwarding to the last 250 years as the sum story of its moral heritage?

Let's just stick with America, so the conversation doesn't get too unwieldy.
1.) The constitution is entirely godless. Some people get confused when "natural law" is discussed. This has nothing to do with Christianity.
2.) Phrases that we hear thrown around like "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" are not from the founding era.
3.) The Declaration of Independence does include references to a deity, though no references to the God of Abraham. Most of the founders, with George Washington being an exception, were deists; some were outright atheists. They believed that a creator was necessary to explain "the universe." This makes sense if you take into account that neither Darwin nor astro physics had come along yet. Don't confuse this with the founders being Christians.
4.) Many founders not only rejected Christianity, but were outright opposed to it. I'm not going to go cherry pick quotes, but the language of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine is particularly vehement in this regard.
5.) In contrast, the founders do directly mention great works of the Enlightenment as a clear influence, such as Hobbes' Leviathan.
6.) Yes ancient Greece was a major influence on the founders. Since, as you said yourself, this predates Christianity, I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[ZedsDed]

And sure, anything good we might ascribe to religion can be explained some other way. Certainly the idea it's done more harm than good fits in with most theories of anthropology and behavior you might susbscribe to (sarcasm).

I'm not sure what you're implying, but I think large parts of cultural anthropology and behavioral psychology are nonsense.

 

[StudyLater]

5.) In contrast, the founders do directly mention great works of the Enlightenment as a clear influence, such as Hobbes' Leviathan.

Uhhh I mean I agree they probably studied Hobbes but....Locke was definitely the greater influence. And he's kind of the polar opposite.

If they listened to Hobbes, we'd be bowing down right now to King Obama.

 

[ZedsDed]

Uhhh I mean I agree they probably studied Hobbes but....Locke was definitely the greater influence. And he's kind of the polar opposite.

If they listened to Hobbes, we'd be bowing down right now to King Obama.

Yeah man obviously. I just threw out the first name I knew they had referenced.

And according to future President trump we are bowing down on our weak, liberal, effeminate knees to King Barack Hussein Obama

 

[efle]

I'm not sure what you're implying, but I think large parts of cultural anthropology and behavioral psychology are nonsense.

don't forget evolutionary and positive psych

 

[StudyLater]

That's kind of the point though- to be religious, one has to submit to some sort of moral code they believe to be the work of a higher authority. Atheism opens the possibility of having no moral code whatsoever.

I give it 10 to 1 you were in the military.

Not everyone needs a higher authority to operate. Some prefer to lead themselves entirely, despite how difficult that may be.

This is likely why religion is so prevalent in every culture that managed to stay together long enough to extend past prehistory- without a religion imposing a moral code upon people, many choose to become immoral (or to have what many of us would view as an evil sense of morality), leading to a less cohesive society that couldn't hold up to tribes that had shared values and a sense of purpose.

Many still choose to become immoral. Religion certainly isn't a requirement here. I originally agreed with your point that Christianity prevents a lot of evil, but I think this more applies to evil contemplation. The acts themselves are prevented by legal penalties. These are very sufficient deterrents. Coupled with religion, you've got a manipulation powerhouse which is quite effective. Law to control the hand. Religion to control the mind.

This isn't to say that atheists are incapable of morality or forming a cohesive society, but rather that doing so is much more difficult, as religion makes one cast aside their self interest in the name of a common belief, while atheism basically amounts to this life being the only one you've got, so if you sacrifice in the name of a common goal or the common good, you often have to do so in spite of your own interests with no other incentive but to know you are doing good.

Dude. Have you seen Asian countries? SUPER strong collectivist cultures despite being predominately atheist. The idea of doing good for others can easily be independent of a religion.

For many, that incentive is not enough. They need to believe in karma or a heaven or that if they are a good person some deity will reward their good deeds, because people are shortsighted, self-interested animals at the end of the day, most having little concept of reward beyond something that comes in the near future.

@ZedsDed clearly Jack here is the one most influenced by Hobbes.

The concept that all human beings are out for personal interest exclusively, all the time, is a very simplified view.

Hence why we don't have a functional space exploration program, despite the fact that it could lead to a post-scarcity society, and that some of the most atheistic nations in the world have the capacity to fund such ventures (much of Europe, China, and Japan).

So then....atheists societies do work to the benefit of the collective? I thought this was something you were arguing against before.

 

[StudyLater]

don't forget evolutionary and positive psych

And just psych as a whole.

F*cking zing.

 

[ZedsDed]

don't forget evolutionary and positive psych

I actually haven't really studied evolutionary psychology as a discipline. Is it dumb? That's kind of disappointing, I would think that at the very least they would try and be scientific in their analysis.

 

[ZedsDed]

And just psych as a whole.

F*cking zing.

And sociology! Dear God (pun intended) how could I forget sociology...

 

[TheZaLord]

Whaaat I didn't know that. I bet they didn't worship a mean old Abrahamic God...

That would be Bacchus right? Or Dionysus?
Or they're the same? Something like that. Anyway.

 

[StudyLater]

And sociology! Dear God (pun intended) how could I forget sociology...

Both of these disciplines in a nutshell:

"Here's an explanation for why human beings do the **** they do. It's probably not fully correct. But this is the best we could come up with right now."

 

[StudyLater]

That would be Bacchus right? Or Dionysus?
Or they're the same? Something like that. Anyway.

They are. I think Bacchus is the Roman and Dionysus is the Greek name for the same God.

He's awesome. Probably as a result of him being constantly blasted all the time.

 

[Mad Jack]

I give it 10 to 1 you were in the military.

Not everyone needs a higher authority to operate. Some prefer to lead themselves entirely, despite how difficult that may be.



Many still choose to become immoral. Religion certainly isn't a requirement here. I originally agreed with your point that Christianity prevents a lot of evil, but I think this more applies to evil contemplation. The acts themselves are prevented by legal penalties. These are very sufficient deterrents. Coupled with religion, you've got a manipulation powerhouse which is quite effective. Law to control the hand. Religion to control the mind.



Dude. Have you seen Asian countries? SUPER strong collectivist cultures despite being predominately atheist. The idea of doing good for others can easily be independent of a religion.



@ZedsDed clearly Jack here is the one most influenced by Hobbes.

The concept that all human beings are out for personal interest exclusively, all the time, is a very simplified view.



So then....atheists societies do work to the benefit of the collective? I thought this was something you were arguing against before.

1- Oh god no, I'm not military material. I've got what one would call a serious problem with authority, precisely because the authority of another human being is in no way superior to my own, so I have trouble dealing with taking orders. Smart and driven people don't need a higher authority under which to operate, but the majority of people do. I really wish I could dig up the paper I read on this once- basically, it was a great social psychology paper that made the argument that most people do not want to lead, but rather defer to leadership to minimize the mental strain inherent in making decisions, because brains are lazy and they don't want to do a damn thing they don't have to (hence the very interesting memory issues people are starting to have care of the internet and modern technology- people are forgetting how to navigate because they defer to Google, forgetting how to spell due to reliance on autocorrect, etc). It's pretty safe to say that most everyone on this forum is smart and capable enough to not need to defer to an authority, hence why we're all looking to become the top of the food chain in health care (physicians). But we're the exception, not the rule.

2- We can't really do the West versus East debate. I suppose that one could argue that with strong enough social control/rules and a lack of individualism, you can create a culture in which working for the collective good is possible. But that's kind of incompatible with what many, if not most, Americans would find to be a satisfying way of life. I never said that doing good for others was impossible without religion, just that it was less likely, as most people are not motivated to do good for good's sake. There's actually a whole body of research that shows that the more likely one is to have received or believe they will need to receive charitable services in the future, the more likely they are to be charitable and the higher a percentage of income they give. People work for the common good because they believe it will ultimately or potentially benefit themselves, not out of some need to do good for good's sake, at least most of the time.

I tend to do good things for the hell of it, but that's because I enjoy the chaos inherent in random acts of kindness.

3- It's an oversimplification, but it's generally true, however often that self interest is manifest in other ways than directly, such as with the charitable giving example above. They might sacrifice for their family, or their community, or their friends, or even their country, but generally only if some abstract benefit is presented as coming to them from it. The Chinese, for instance, work together to build a better China because they believe their children and grandchildren will benefit from their efforts, and that they might even prosper in the process. That's not altruism or working for the common good for the sake of goodness itself.

4- No country has built a decent plan to explore the solar system, collectivist, individualist, atheist, or Christian. I don't see how you shot down my example. Every nation is pretty shortsighted, because human beings have trouble planning beyond a generation.

Not that it'll matter for most atheists (or myself, really), since they have the lowest fertility rate of any demographic. It's hard to bring children into the world when you think there's nothing but death awaiting them, on a little blue marble floating through space. And if they're lucky, we might even get off the blue marble so they can die in the endless void or beyond. The real fault of atheism is that, given a few generations, it's likely that they'll continue to be a minority because they just don't breed fast enough.

 

[touchpause13]

Just because I think we are a blue marble in space doesn't mean I don't see inherent value in life. Rather the opposite in fact. One of my biggest issues with Christianity was the focus on after death. I'm not concerned with after death or what the "next world" might be. I'm concerned with now, with life as we know it. I find plenty of beauty and wonder in what I have, and that's enough spirituality for me.

 

[Mad Jack]

I actually haven't really studied evolutionary psychology as a discipline. Is it dumb? That's kind of disappointing, I would think that at the very least they would try and be scientific in their analysis.

Evopsych is something a lot of people find to be creepy, because it tends to make human beings sound like self-interested monsters hell-bent on propagating their genes. The Selfish Gene and The Red Queen are some easy pop-culture reads on the topic.

 

[ZedsDed]

Evopsych is something a lot of people find to be creepy, because it tends to make human beings sound like self-interested monsters hell-bent on propagating their genes. The Selfish Gene and The Red Queen are some easy pop-culture reads on the topic.

Well that sucks if true, but Dawkins certainly doesn't fit that mold. He's commented since the publication of The Selfish Gene that he should've titled it "The Selfish Gene and the Selfless Organism."

 

[Gandyy]

1- Oh god no, I'm not military material. I've got what one would call a serious problem with authority, precisely because the authority of another human being is in no way superior to my own, so I have trouble dealing with taking orders. Smart and driven people don't need a higher authority under which to operate, but the majority of people do. I really wish I could dig up the paper I read on this once- basically, it was a great social psychology paper that made the argument that most people do not want to lead, but rather defer to leadership to minimize the mental strain inherent in making decisions, because brains are lazy and they don't want to do a damn thing they don't have to (hence the very interesting memory issues people are starting to have care of the internet and modern technology- people are forgetting how to navigate because they defer to Google, forgetting how to spell due to reliance on autocorrect, etc). It's pretty safe to say that most everyone on this forum is smart and capable enough to not need to defer to an authority, hence why we're all looking to become the top of the food chain in health care (physicians). But we're the exception, not the rule.

2- We can't really do the West versus East debate. I suppose that one could argue that with strong enough social control/rules and a lack of individualism, you can create a culture in which working for the collective good is possible. But that's kind of incompatible with what many, if not most, Americans would find to be a satisfying way of life. I never said that doing good for others was impossible without religion, just that it was less likely, as most people are not motivated to do good for good's sake. There's actually a whole body of research that shows that the more likely one is to have received or believe they will need to receive charitable services in the future, the more likely they are to be charitable and the higher a percentage of income they give. People work for the common good because they believe it will ultimately or potentially benefit themselves, not out of some need to do good for good's sake, at least most of the time.

I tend to do good things for the hell of it, but that's because I enjoy the chaos inherent in random acts of kindness.

3- It's an oversimplification, but it's generally true, however often that self interest is manifest in other ways than directly, such as with the charitable giving example above. They might sacrifice for their family, or their community, or their friends, or even their country, but generally only if some abstract benefit is presented as coming to them from it. The Chinese, for instance, work together to build a better China because they believe their children and grandchildren will benefit from their efforts, and that they might even prosper in the process. That's not altruism or working for the common good for the sake of goodness itself.

4- No country has built a decent plan to explore the solar system, collectivist, individualist, atheist, or Christian. I don't see how you shot down my example. Every nation is pretty shortsighted, because human beings have trouble planning beyond a generation.

Not that it'll matter for most atheists (or myself, really), since they have the lowest fertility rate of any demographic. It's hard to bring children into the world when you think there's nothing but death awaiting them, on a little blue marble floating through space. And if they're lucky, we might even get off the blue marble so they can die in the endless void or beyond. The real fault of atheism is that, given a few generations, it's likely that they'll continue to be a minority because they just don't breed fast enough.

How in the world do you study properly for med school, and spend this much time on SDN?

 

[Mad Jack]

How in the world do you study properly for med school, and spend this much time on SDN?

I only spend about an hour a day on SDN, if that. It just seems like I'm here a lot more because I type fast.

 

[BeachBlondie]

Evopsych is something a lot of people find to be creepy, because it tends to make human beings sound like self-interested monsters hell-bent on propagating their genes. The Selfish Gene and The Red Queen are some easy pop-culture reads on the topic.

I mean........aren't they, though?