Atheists The New Theists ?

Do most people care about anyone they don't know? Like I wouldn't wish harm on anyone, but I don't exactly care if anyone is here or not.

I am an atheist just because I don't believe, this is a single point in my beliefs. I don't do harm or wrong others because it's the right thing to do, not because my religion or some divine god is telling me there will be some crazy consequences.

Back on topic, your life is not valuable to me, as I do not know you.

/hates!

But wHy?

thank you for your honesty.

Wait, I thought this thread got nuked.

I'm so confused.

This thread... still going?

are these nerds still whining? who gives a ***already? why do people save endangered species? shouldn't these *** be able to evolve their brain cells and make some weapons and ***to fight back, or at least evolve into something that can live in the pollution.

they're supposed to adapt to their surroundings, so why the *** do people whine about forests getting cut down? that's big business, you scientists should figure out why these animals aren't *** transforming into humans faster.

Can't tell if srs.. It takes time, a lot of time. We try to protect them because it's mostly our fault their habitats are lost.

I'm calling Poe's law.

Meanwhile, Christians are so supportive of other's views!

ok so one day, the gorilla in the zoo could be the greatx100 grandmother of a human being? i'm being for srs now. i only talked that ignorant ***before because that one dude was flippin like he never been on the internet before.

also, the habitat part, why do you talk about it in a bad way? like the animals die off and it's automatically a bad thing. isn't that what "natural selection" is? they're weak, so they die, we're strong, so we live. i know it *** with the ecosystem and whatever because the food chain gets less and less, but we're already manufacturing the animals that matter like cows and pigs, and manufacturing our edible plants.

i don't really see how this is against evolution, if anything, the humans taking over is how it's supposed to work right? the strong win, the weak die.

In theory yes, we're smarter, capable of making advanced strategies and traps. We are the very high on the food chain, in our own habitat.

You can't just expect some animals to be able to move into ours and thrive. Evolution takes time(millions of years?) for one species to adapt to their new environment. While we tear down more and more trees more species become extinct, not to mention people hunt(ed) many out of existence as well.

No, but the gorilla in the zoo could be the great^nth grandmother of another cousin of the human species. We share a common ancestor, not a direct link. That's why the argument of "Then why are there still monkeys" is absolutely silly.

yeah, i understand that part, and i agree. but let me play devil's advocate, say i don't agree. why is it wrong? isn't this how evolution works? we continually strive to live, and the others who aren't as strong die.

like when i watch these discovery channel shows, there was one with a cheetah and 2 cubs. the mother got a nice gash, nothing life threatening if she would've gotten it taken care of. the thing is, they just watched her die slowly as it got infected, and her cubs were now motherless with no one to care for them.

i don't know what happened (ended up falling asleep) but i mean, what they did was allow the natural cycle to take place, but it also went against what you're saying, because aren't cheetahs endangered species?

no matter what they'd have done, it would have changed something. if they helped, it would no longer be the survival of the fittest, if they let her die as they did, it seems cruel and the opposite of trying to help these endangered species survive.

It's bad because we're connected to the habitat. Sure, we could wipe out some species now and not feel it but eventually we'll be very sharply reducing quality of life. It's already happening.

There are many things humans don't understand and we cannot come close to attempting to replicate the natural environment. Humans are intelligent but our own intelligence could very well be our downfall.

so our evolution is a gift and a curse is what you're saying right?

it's dependent on how we use this intelligence that will determine whether it's our downfall or our only hope, but it seems to me, it will always be BOTH. like Albert Einstein created the atom, i'm pretty sure he didn't mean to discover this so it can be used to destroy millions of lives (or thousands, i don't really know) but it ended up that way, at least for now. i'm sure some quantum physicist or whatever can tell me what the original idea of it was for (some kind of energy resource i imagine).

so where did the separation start? or is that the ***they talk about when they mean the "missing link" what's the 2 ancestors that the missing link is in between?

i'm not trying to question you in an argumentative manner, i'm genuinely ignorant of all the details of this stuff. if it's like a textbook of ***then (thanks for the offer, but i'll have to pass), but if it you could sum it up, that would be cool.

I'm not exactly saying it's wrong per se, but it's dumb, we're not taking trees down to live, we're using it for paper which I'm sure we could do without.

Humans no matter how advanced we are, we're still animals. We display animalistic behavior all the time.

As far as the cheetahs go, It's their job to film not interfere with them, while I know some shows have taken it upon themselves to assist hurt animals, it's not their job.

Lemme see if I can find a copy of the evolutionary tree of life. May take me a while, I don't know the exact wording to find it on google at the moment.

but we need the paper to have a civilization. we don't need it to survive, but we need it to keep important data on etc.

Not anymore, we don't!

Unlike other species which have thrived or died out, we have a choice with regards to which pile we end up in. Yes, I guess one could put our intellect as humans as a gift and curse.

Right now, the human species is at a crossroads. We're much like adolescents realizing that with age comes responsibility and poor decisions have real consequences.

The ball is in our court. We've developed at an unsustainable pace, destroying parts of the planet in exchange for the luxuries we enjoy today yet unless we change course and make more intelligent decisions, we're all going to pay as a species through a cratered quality of life on this planet.

A dystopian Earth is not as far-fetched as many would like to believe.

I'm not about to state that we go back to pre-industrialized times but humanity is going to have to pull more out of our bag of tricks to tackle the problems we've created for ourselves in addition to a world where we can live comfortably without wiping out everything in our path.

Everything we need is on a computer now

i don't know about you, but i'm not about to wipe my *** with a computer.

i think that "dystopian Earth" is already a reality for people who live in some of the *** up countries in Africa. like Somalia, i didn't even know, but they have NO government wtf

So, since I was torn apart by someone in another thread for saying I would have my child/children baptized in another thread (even though I'm agnostic), I have a question for our most ardent atheists...

Is it hypocritical of you to attend or have a wedding or funeral? Both of these ceremonies are fundamentally religious. Just popped into my head recently.

I attended a wedding recently, and I thought the preacher was a *** and was being more preachy than he should have been.
I thought the same thing when I went to a funeral recently as well.
My conclusion: People are ***.
I'm pretty sure the dude who orated over my friends wedding was hammered though.
I don't really know where being a hypocrite would come into play here though.
You are going to the wedding or funeral because of a person that is deceased, not because of the religion.
And yet the last two times I've went that's all it's been about, where I can understand more-so with the present "need" for it in a funeral full of baptists, but when you start preaching about God for 10 minutes rather than talking about the dearly departed, you good sir are a ***.
that's what my old hometown is good for.
creating egotistical preachers/church leaders who spout of BS and get caught diddling 20 somethings and lose their whole "flock".

i love when christians get compared to animals you herd!

Wouldn't really be hypocritical. It's the same as you showing respect for your friend that prays before their meal. She would probably be doing it for her family/friends/community to respect their beliefs.

I agree with you Zahrah. It's the same as attending a funeral in a church for a loved one. You're just respecting the beliefs of your friends and family. Nothing wrong with showing respect and not being an *** to people.

Basically, Josiah, in the other thread I said that I see the baptism in a different light that makes it an endearing ceremony to me. I don't necessarily see it exclusively in the liturgical context, but let's not get into that again.

Basically, a wedding invitation came in. My friend's fiance is an atheist. This will be class Catholic ceremony since her parents are paying for it. Could this be hypocritical on his part? If you ever speak to this guy, he sounds like Pewpeww and Jetacku. (Sorry. Those are the most similar personalities I could reference.)

Apart from the fact that funerals are religious services, you'd be correct. Death seems to strike the realization that anyone can die whenever into people, and thus the urgency to preach comes about.