ID, intelligence, meaning, purpose.

[cdowis]

Since helping others causes me to feel fulfilled, and if helping my direct family also causes me to feel fulfilled... how do you distinguish whether one is caused by Darwinism and the other one did not? Why can't we say BOTH are beneficial to a person since both cause similar effects?Is the feeling of fulfillment not a benefit?

If you have a feeling of "right", it would have nothing to do with Darwin, in my personal opinion.

If you want to somehow connect survival of the fittest to self-sacrifice to someone thousands of miles away, someone you do not know at all, I applaud you that you have a conscience, a measure of the Light of Christ, even if you were to deny it.

It's there in everyone.

[Tarski]

Since helping others causes me to feel fulfilled, and if helping my direct family also causes me to feel fulfilled... how do you distinguish whether one is caused by Darwinism and the other one did not? Why can't we say BOTH are beneficial to a person since both cause similar effects?Is the feeling of fulfillment not a benefit?

I appreciate your willingness to acknowledge various possibilites.

Here is another (not quite fit for Mormonism perhaps);

Evolution is an undirected process that perhaps inevitably gave rise to intelligence, moral ideas and in particular to a singular person called Jesus of Nazareth. Thus the universe by a confluence of lawfulness and randomness held in it's inner most nature the seeds of the light of Christ and also the seeds of this "Word" become flesh. Evolution being undirected by anything but what was contained in the original basic laws of existence shows this Light of Christ to be something that we truly belong to, and it to us, rather than being imposed on us by some sort of existential violence. Coeternal=coevolved

Well, it's just some random semi-poetic thinking to show that evolution and even what appears to be atheism by most standards might still provide a basically Christian ethos.

[cdowis]

Basic values are not are not logically deduced. The function more like axioms that seem natural to us because of our humanity (built by evolutionary, social, and empirical forces). If you knew more about logic, you would realize that the axioms are chosen because they seem useful or self evidence, they are not deduced. You have to start somehwere and humans naturally start with certain values and things grow from there.

I understand why you do not want to look at the source of those axioms. But you appear to agree that it is not logical, but only an assumption or axiom which you refuse to examine.

In your terms, the Light of Christ just isn't literally from a guy named Jesus.

Evolution is not from a guy named Evolved.

You are wrong about what is obvious. Furthermore, there is nothing strictly logical about seeking benefits for oneself. There is no logical contradiction in seeking my own destruction.

I could (in principle) construct a perfectly logical computer that was programmed to seek benefits for Mary down the street rather than for itself.

Yes, you could write such a program. But that is Intelligent Design. The computer language, the compiler, the hardware are all evidence of ID, and that is before you even write such a program.

Such irony that we can agree on such a basic level. It may not be obvious to you, but I see it clearly.

If you were to permit randomized individual charactors forming lines of prgramming, would it produce the same result. First it needs to create its own compiler and computer language, and then it will write the program that you are seeking.

Why don't you try it and see what happens. Perhaps that "cluster of probability" will produce the result that you are seeking. I think the probability that you can produce such a result is higher than evolution producing the intelligent atheist.

[elguanteloko]

If you have a feeling of "right", it would have nothing to do with Darwin, in my personal opinion.

... you just granted we could have such feelings of cooperation towards our relatives through Darwinism but not towards those far from us... now you say ALL such feelings have nothing to do with Darwin? Again, how do you distinguish whether one is caused by Darwinism and the other one did not?

If you want to somehow connect survival of the fittest to self-sacrifice to someone thousands of miles away, someone you do not know at all, I applaud you that you have a conscience, a measure of the Light of Christ, even if you were to deny it.

It's there in everyone.

It's not that I want to connect them. YOU are the one who thinks Darwinism could not have produced self-sacrifice and have not presented any clear support.

[Glenn101]

And ancient Biblical morality and philosophy is a modification of prior fear based superstitions and polytheisms.

The better often grows out of the inferior. So I can conceed that much. I just say so what? The authenticity lies in the williness of progressive individuals to make or accept the modifications according to increasingly intelligent and increasingly compassionate values rather than stay stuck in a primitive stage. Since humans make the modifications, it is humans that are creating it out of what they have created in the past. We are the source.

I don't think that you will find a correlation between ancient Biblical morality and previous philosophies and morality sets. I don't know that intelligence has been progressing, just the education> I lso have never seen demonstrated a link between compassion and intelligence. I guess that you are saying that there never was an egg. It was always the chickens.

Well then Christians owe their moral compass to what informed their philosophies. This include prior pagan ideas and later influence from the greeks. As you say, nothing is totally original--only modified (hopefully for the better).

Again, I do not think that you will find pagan and Greek influences in the New Testament Christianity, although I concede that that such influences did creep in, to the detriment, not benefit of Christianity.

Well, it was the creationist ID proponents that were trying to sell the idea that intelligence alone provides sufficient meaning and purpose. I'm just taking that on for the sake of argument. Take it up with them.

I don't agree with anybody sometimes.

Glenn

[elguanteloko]

I appreciate your willingness to acknowledge various possibilites.

Here is another (not quite fit for Mormonism perhaps);

Evolution is an undirected process that perhaps inevitably gave rise to intelligence, moral ideas and in particular to a singular person called Jesus of Nazareth. Thus the universe by a confluence of lawfulness and randomness held in it's inner most nature the seeds of the light of Christ and also the seeds of this "Word" become flesh. Evolution being undirected by anything but what was contained in the original basic laws of existence shows this Light of Christ to be something that we truly belong to, and it to us, rather than being imposed on us by some sort of existential violence. Coeternal=coevolved

Well, it's just some random semi-poetic thinking to show that evolution and even what appears to be atheism by most standards might still provide a basically Christian ethos.

True, but I guess admiration can be expressed through many forms.

[Tarski]

Basic values are not are not logically deduced. The function more like axioms that seem natural to us because of our humanity (built by evolutionary, social, and empirical forces). If you knew more about logic, you would realize that the axioms are chosen because they seem useful or self evidence, they are not deduced. You have to start somewhere and humans naturally start with certain values and things grow from there.

I understand why you do not want to look at the source of those axioms. But you appear to agree that it is not logical, but only an assumption or axiom which you refuse to examine.

Yes, you could write such a program. But that is Intelligent Design. The computer language, the compiler, the hardware are all evidence of ID, and that is before you even write such a program.

Such irony that we can agree on such a basic level. It may not be obvious to you, but I see it clearly.

...

Why don't you try it and see what happens. Perhaps that "cluster of probability" will produce the result that you are seeking. I think the probability that you can produce such a result is higher than evolution producing the intelligent atheist.

I understand why you do not want to look at the source of those axioms. But you appear to agree that it is not logical, but only an assumption or axiom which you refuse to examine.

You don't understand anything I guess because considering the source of the axioms is exactly what I did do. You don't like it or don't get it. I don't refuse to examine anything cdowis--least of all the shaky foundations of the magical world view you adhere to.

Yes, you could write such a program. But that is Intelligent Design. The computer language, the compiler, the hardware are all evidence of ID, and that is before you even write such a program.

The point of this was that the choice of basic goals is not forced by logic. Once the basic goals are set, then logic may be of help in attaining them. Instead of getting that point you try to commandeer the analogy by emphasizing exactly the irrelevant aspects. You just don't want to get the point and you certainly don't see things clearly. You make one false or illogical statement after another. Should I list them?

If you were to permit randomized individual charactors forming lines of prgramming, would it produce the same result.

No. But then, that isn't what natural selection is. After all this time you still think evolution is just a random combination of molecules. It is not. It is a naturally occurring algorithm or process. It has structure. Even the results of erosion like the Grand Canyon would be statistically impossible if it were a matter of just randomly combining molecules with supposed equal likelihoods for each possible combination.

In short, you equate natural with naively random as if nature had no patterns or laws that bias outcomes.

[cdowis]

YOU are the one who thinks Darwinism could not have produced self-sacrifice and have not presented any clear support.

I agree that this is one of those unanswered issues which evolution needs to answer. We will add it to the list of unanswered issues. How did unselfish self-sacrifice for those who are unknown and we will probably never know develop? Is this found in any other creature, besides the maternal protection?

You have brought out an excellent point == how does Darwinsim explain it?

That list is very long and growing.

[Tarski]

Again, I do not think that you will find pagan and Greek influences in the New Testament Christianity, although I concede that that such influences did creep in, to the detriment, not benefit of Christianity.

You certainly do find Greek and pagan infuences and much has been written about it. This much is already clear since it didn't come out of a vacuum. The only question is just how much was the infuence and how much was original. No new religion can thrwo off all the unspoken religious assumptions of the time.

Also, the Old Testament influences the NT and there is little question that ancient Judaism grew out of religions that were polytheistic and quite superstitious by today's standards. Think about sacrificing animals to appease the gods. The OT is really quite barbaric in tone and content.

[cdowis]

But then, that isn't what natural selection is. After all this time you still think evolution is just a random combination of molecules.

You are putting words in my mouth. I have insisted in the past that when you "quote" me, you give the exact quote, from my post. And not "summarize" my position.

Natural selection is built on a foundation of random mutations. Natural selection is not random, but mutations are. Natural selection is a mechanism which is able to select from an array of those mutations the ones which enhance survival.

The point is that natural selection cannot select from any mutation which does not exist. It can only select from the existing pool of mutations, mutations WHICH ARE RANDOM. Some mutations may have great value, but are "lost" because they occur in the wrong place, at the wrong time (wrong sequencing), or just thru accidental loss.

Now, if you should want to argue with me, that mutations are not random, I have no problem with that. We call it Intelligent Design.

I will now put words into your mouth == you believe that mutations are not random, but based on a pre-designed plan. Those mutations "know" in advance what results will occur, even millions of years in the future. You deny the creator but use creation concepts.

I have put words into your mouth, and you now can waste your time correcting me. Afer all this time, you have not learned that this is a very tiresome game that you are playing.

[Tarski]

I will now put words into your mouth == you believe that mutations are not random, but based on a pre-designed plan. Those mutations "know" in advance what results will occur, even millions of years in the future. You deny the creator but use creation concepts.

I believe that there are physical laws whose implications for complexity are yet to be fully explored.

I also think any time someone tries to calculate the odds of life, the calculation is bunk for the above reason.

[elguanteloko]

I agree that this is one of those unanswered issues which evolution needs to answer. We will add it to the list of unanswered issues. How did unselfish self-sacrifice for those who are unknown and we will probably never know develop? Is this found in any other creature, besides the maternal protection?

You have brought out an excellent point == how does Darwinsim explain it?

That list is very long and growing.

Well, seeing that you have completely abandoned your attempt to explain your position and decide to ask questions you should have tried to answer before... let me give my answer.

Compassion to others far from us is only an extension from our capacity to love and take care of our relatives and those immediate to us. I view it as very unsurprising that we have extended our ability to do math, make tools, etc so far while letting these social abilities untouched. If you notice, there is a difference in the quality of impulse you have when you hear that 27,000 children die of povery-related causes and actually seeing a video of a child or being right in front of a kid dying by dehydration and being left alone. Why the difference? Your position can't explain it. Those feelings of compassion, love, and cooperation we have to others arise when we put ourselves in their shoes and psychologically extend our good feelings to people far away as if they were close to us.

[Glenn101]

It seems that we are having one of those spasms of philosophy where all opinions carry equal weight, zero. I don't see any winners here. It's a tie for last place or first place depending upon your outlook on life.

Glenn

[cdowis]

Compassion to others far from us is only an extension from our capacity to love and take care of our relatives and those immediate to us. I view it as very unsurprising that we have extended our ability to do math, make tools, etc so far while letting these social abilities untouched. If you notice, there is a difference in the quality of impulse you have when you hear that 27,000 children die of povery-related causes and actually seeing a video of a child or being right in front of a kid dying by dehydration and being left alone. Why the difference? Your position can't explain it. Those feelings of compassion, love, and cooperation we have to others arise when we put ourselves in their shoes and psychologically extend our good feelings to people far away as if they were close to us.

A very good answer.

And I am suggesting that those feelings did not come from natural selection. That feeling of compassion, especially for strangers, is going to be difficult/impossible for the evolutionists to demonstrate. I also suggest that Stalin is the epitomy of what the result of natural selection would be.

Those of my faith call it the Light of Christ, which enlightens every person.

The evolutionists will just have to add it to the list.

[semlogo]

A very good answer.

And I am suggesting that those feelings did not come from natural selection. That feeling of compassion, especially for strangers, is going to be difficult/impossible for the evolutionists to demonstrate. Those of my faith call it the Light of Christ, which enlightens every person.

The evolutionists will just have to add it to the list.

Oops, already done. This is why the god of the gaps defense is always a losing strategy. The gaps inevitably narrow and disappear.

http://www.sharpbrains.com/blog/2010/02/02/the-evolution-of-empathy/

The Evolution of Empathy

(Editor

[cdowis]

OK, animals have empathy.

So what? How does that relate to evolution vs ID? We believe that animals have a spirit, and, in their own way, follow the rules and laws of the creator. They are intelligent, have problem solving abilities, communicate. These characteristics fit nicely into the context of my LDS religious belief, since they are creatures with a soul.

Indeed, the scriptures tell us that the earth itself has a soul, and wept for mankind. (Moses 7:48)

Once again, evidence for evolution does not preclude ID. It

[semlogo]

OK, animals have empathy.

So what? How does that relate to evolution vs ID? We believe that animals have a spirit, and, in their own way, follow the rules and laws of the creator. They are intelligent, have problem solving abilities and these all fit into the context of my LDS religious belief, since they are creatures with a soul, not just robotons.

Once again, evidence for evolution does not preclude ID.

You issued a challenge to evolutionists:

"

And I am suggesting that those feelings did not come from natural selection. That feeling of compassion, especially for strangers, is going to be difficult/impossible for the evolutionists to demonstrate. Those of my faith call it the Light of Christ, which enlightens every person.

The evolutionists will just have to add it to the list."

Challenge met. Empathy came about via natural selection.

No evidence for evolution precludes the possibility for the existence of God, however. I have faith in God, but it's not based on scientific evidence, because there is no scientific evidence for God. There is plenty (to put it lightly) for evolution.

Science is silent on the matter of the existence of God.

[elguanteloko]

You issued a challenge to evolutionists:

Challenge met. Empathy came about via natural selection.

No evidence for evolution precludes the possibility for the existence of God, however. I have faith in God, but it's not based on scientific evidence, because there is no scientific evidence for God. There is plenty (to put it lightly) for evolution.

Science is silent on the matter of the existence of God.

wow. a wise man speaking. Rep point for that one.

[TAO]

Well, if that is the kind of person you truly are then God was invented for you to keep you in control. Some of us authentically want to be fair, loving, and create solidarity with fellow human beings and we do not need a heavenly supervisor threatening us with hell. The goodness we promote is our own goal.

Not particularly... I feel the pain of others deeply (thank you heavenly father for giving me a conscience as such), I probably couldn't get myself to take advantage of another person like that. In fact, I would probably go into depression. But there are others who WILL take advantage fully in a situation like that.

In fact, that is one of the reasons I searched for him in the first place - I wanted to see if there was an alternate world to a greedy materialistic one. I wanted to know if there was an alternate, and I had nothing to lose.

All the things you fear about evil people taking control happens and it is only the rest of us that resist. God does nothing. God did not stop Nazism. Eventually, the American armed forces did.

Yes it does happen, but without a God, there is noreason it shouldn't happen. Without God there is no right and wrong, simply who's in power, and who's not. A dictator could control the entire world, and that would be fine. In fact, I don't really fear this - I just realize it's the blunt truth of what a world would be like without God (if it even managed to get to where we are now). You know, I have to say, I'd rather die than live in such a world.

All the goodness you want and all the evil you fear are already here with or without god.

Na, I'm talking in terms of eventualities. In a world without God, eventually, someone will manage to control the minds of everyone. It has to do with the natures of those two opposite purposes I was talking about. Happiness is patient and healing, whereas pleasure is ruthless and demanding. Happiness is strong, but it is merciful, and pleasure could easily overwhelm it in a world without God. Without God, there is no way happiness can have the upper hand, because there is no justice.

The powerful already control things. Is God stopping that?

Eventually, yes. I think in terms of eventualities.

Except self respect and peace of mind. Atheists do not do as you suppose. Carl Sagan was gentle. So was Einstein, Hawking, Dawkins etc.

That's because they aren't true atheists, or are, at least, reluctant to take on the full realization of what their beliefs mean.

Also... Sagan was an agnostic... Einstein was semi-theistic (he believed order meant there had to be something)... Hawking is partially atheistic... and although Dawkins is atheist, he again, doesn't realize the full consequences of his beliefs.

Your vision of how people live without the idea of god watching them is just flat out false.

No, it is thorough. Not all people would act like such in a world without God. But when pleasure holds such an advantage over happiness, many would see little point in not taking advantage of others when they can. After all, who is gonna stop em if they do take advantage. For eventually, someone will get in the situation, where nobody can stop them but God.

On the other hand, check out the religionists around the world sometime. There are lots of scams and plenty of violence.

Uh, did you happen to read the post in the other thread, where I explained this while responding to you... perhaps you didn't, at that, oh well, I'll explain it again, np.

God isn't the cause of people's actions. He gives them weaknesses, and allows them to be tempted to the degree they are able to bear, but people fail all the time. I know I fail lots of the time. And when we fail, we don't act according to how God wants us to. Thus, you end up with people who are part of a religion, making decent honest mistakes. From there you have people who repent, and apologize, and then you have people that make their mistakes worse (I did that for a while before I realized my mistake in a certain instance I'm remembering right now).

Again, morality exists, many people authentically want a fair society. All this is true despite there being no god.

Yep, I want a fair society, that I do, but I do realize, that there are people out there who don't. In fact, I want something even more great than a fair society, but I also realize there are people not dedicated enough for that. I want alot of things, but they are out of reach as long as people base their purpose on pleasure. Which they will, in a world without God. Thus again, one of the reasons I sought God in the first place, and I am infinitely in his debt for letting me find him.

Its funny. I know dozens of atheists--nearly all my best friends. Whole societies in Europe are largely atheistic or agnostic.

Yet I have never personally met an evil atheist that wishes to rule the world or steal or murder or even be unkind.

That's because, as said, most of them don't realize what a world without God would look like. They aren't truly atheistic. They are not thorough. A good example of what a real atheist would be like would be... Stalin. Indeed, he understood what taking advantage of others was... and used it to terrible effects. A world without God would lack people having conscience.

EDIT: Lol, just realized there was a discussion about Stalin a few posts above... lol XD.

Most are sort of community oriented types and love their intellectual pursuits (science, literature, music etc). They are harmless as doves and all without thinking they must be good to avoid punishment from God.

What you are saying is nuts and goes against current reality.

Yes, I know, I used to be doubtful of God and absorbed in my scientific interests (lol, I remember those days). But as said, thought they may be harmless, others are not. Simply, anybody with the idea of control becomes a danger in a world without God. A world without God has no justice, no order, simply, chaos.

You keep mentioning that you think there is no God. But I know there is. I tested it with the full extent of my heart, with my full will, I went to him. There are many reasons I went to him. One was, a need for justice. A second was, a need of a sense of purpose. A third was a need to understand the feelings I had when I read the scriptures. They may not be perfect reasons, and there are surely better ones out there, but I went to him, with my whole heart. And I know how he answered, that I do, with my whole heart and soul.

[cdowis]

Empathy came about via natural selection.

Actually it shows that empathy is a design feature from the Intelligent Designer in all higher organisms, so it shows evidence of ID.

There is absolutely no evidence in that article for natural selection. Nada, zip.

[Tarski]

Not particularly... I feel the pain of others deeply (thank you heavenly father for giving me a conscience as such), I probably couldn't get myself to take advantage of another person like that. In fact, I would probably go into depression. But there are others who WILL take advantage fully in a situation like that.

Then you prove my point. You would do no harm even without god. Therefor morality is possible without God. QED.

The fact that other might is meaningless since others already do harm even when they beleive in God. QED again.

Without God there is no right and wrong, simply who's in power, and who's not.

Why keep repeating what is false over and over? It just isn't true. You helped me prove it above and I prove it every day.

A dictator could control the entire world, and that would be fine. In fact, I don't really fear this - I just realize it's the blunt truth of what a world would be like without God (if it even managed to get to where we are now). You know, I have to say, I'd rather die than live in such a world.

Na, I'm talking in terms of eventualities. In a world without God, eventually, someone will manage to control the minds of everyone.

Ironically, in your veiw there is someone in control and by virtue of their power. God!

It has to do with the natures of those two opposite purposes I was talking about. Happiness is patient and healing, whereas pleasure is ruthless and demanding. Happiness is strong, but it is merciful, and pleasure could easily overwhelm it in a world without God.

Just flat nonsense. It doesn't follow at all. Again you just keep repeating this like it is obvious. But it isn't obvious or even ture.

Without God, there is no way happiness can have the upper hand, because there is no justice.

????

Look atheists are often HAPPY and not because of the cosmic dictator God. Again. I just flatly deny that what you say is true.

You can't win a rational argument by just asserting things.

That's because they aren't true atheists, or are, at least, reluctant to take on the full realization of what their beliefs mean.

This is both wrong and offensive. Atheism does not imply immoriality. Please stop repeating the same falsehood in different forms.

Also... Sagan was an agnostic... Einstein was semi-theistic (he believed order meant there had to be something)... Hawking is partially atheistic... and although Dawkins is atheist, he again, doesn't realize the full consequences of his beliefs.

False and offensive. Einstein explicitly denied any God who cared whathumans do or don't do.

But when pleasure holds such an advantage over happiness, many would see little point in not taking advantage of others when they can.

You seem to have a problem with pleasure. What is the deal with that?

Uh, did you happen to read the post in the other thread, where I explained this while responding to you... perhaps you didn't, at that, oh well, I'll explain it again, np.

God isn't the cause of people's actions. He gives them weaknesses, and allows them to be tempted to the degree they are able to bear, but people fail all the time. I know I fail lots of the time. And when we fail, we don't act according to how God wants us to. Thus, you end up with people who are part of a religion, making decent honest mistakes. From there you have people who repent, and apologize, and then you have people that make their mistakes worse (I did that for a while before I realized my mistake in a certain instance I'm remembering right now).

Sorry to say that this doesn't make sense to me.

Yep, I want a fair society, that I do, but I do realize, that there are people out there who don't.

Again, that is true without God isn't it now.

That's because, as said, most of them don't realize what a world without God would look like. They aren't truly atheistic. They are not thorough. A good example of what a real atheist would be like would be... Stalin. Indeed, he understood what taking advantage of others was... and used it to terrible effects. A world without God would lack people having conscience.

EDIT: Lol, just realized there was a discussion about Stalin a few posts above... lol XD.

Yes, I know, I used to be doubtful of God and absorbed in my scientific interests (lol, I remember those days). But as said, thought they may be harmless, others are not. Simply, anybody with the idea of control becomes a danger in a world without God. A world without God has no justice, no order, simply, chaos.

You keep mentioning that you think there is no God. But I know there is. I tested it with the full extent of my heart, with my full will, I went to him. There are many reasons I went to him. One was, a need for justice. A second was, a need of a sense of purpose. A third was a need to understand the feelings I had when I read the scriptures. They may not be perfect reasons, and there are surely better ones out there, but I went to him, with my whole heart. And I know how he answered, that I do, with my whole heart and soul.

It is hard to even read that. You literally don't know what you are talking about.

[TAO]

Then you prove my point. You would do no harm even without god. Therefor morality is possible without God. QED.

Erm... you need to read my post again.

Sorry, don't know what QED means, and I probably won't use it, I like talking in my terms, that I do. Sometimes I even make up my own words (although I lay out clearly what they mean) to describe what I mean. For example, my version of the word chaos, means absolute randomness, where as others use it differently.

The fact that other might is meaningless since others already do harm even when they beleive in God. QED again.

Ah, I think I sense the problem in your Point of View... ok... so tell me, why are you blaming people's mistakes on God? People can be sinful, deceitful, mean, uncaring, and horrid. But God can't be. He does what he can, but when people don't listen to him, he can't help them make the right choices. Thus you get people who harm others who believe in God - because they weren't listening.

And they will be responsible for their actions.

Why keep repeating what is false over and over? It just isn't true. You helped me prove it above and I prove it every day.

Uh, I am not making the connection here. You misread my post earlier... yah, on the contrary, I think I just supported what I believed, no? That without God, there is no justice?

Ironically, in your veiw there is someone in control and by virtue of their power. God!

Yes, but God is just, which is an important distinction. People can try to be just, but they aren't anything like God is. God is the ultimate justice because he reads intentions. A world without God lacks this.

Just flat nonsense. It doesn't follow at all. Again you just keep repeating this like it is obvious. But it isn't obvious or even ture.

Ok, so obviously you aren't getting what I'm saying, cuz you're responding with blanket statements and semi-assumptions. So I'm going to start it over cuz it might have been a bit scattered (sometimes my posts are like that). I'm not trying to insult you buy this, but simply make it easier to trace.

PART A

First Point: People can choose to help others

Second Point: People can choose to help themselves

Third Point: People can choose to help nobody (although people rarely choose this option

Fourth Point: The first three points consist of all possibilities of people actions, they fit into one of the categories. If it possibly fits in two, it fits in the most categorized one.

PART B

From Part A: People can either choose to help others, or help themselves, those are one of two purposes in life.

Assumption Divide Point: Let's say we had a world without God. Therefore, there is no reward nor punishment for your actions.

Second Point: Because there is no reward or punishment, there is no absolute right or wrong

Third Point: Therefore, in a world without God, people are justified whether they choose to help others, or help themselves.

Part C

From Part B: People are justified whether they choose to help others or help themselves

First Point: One of the ways people help themselves is by taking power

Second Point: Therefore people are not at fault for taking power for themselves

Concluding Point: If a person is capable of taking over a world without God, and wishes to help themselves, they should.

Larger Concluding Point: In a world without God, people are not wrong in taking advantage of other human beings.

Hopefully you'll see where I'm getting. You might ask though, why did I go through the trouble of explaining it when I don't believe in proving God? Because it's a reason to search for God. It does not prove God, it simply gives a reason to search for him.

????

Look atheists are often HAPPY and not because of the cosmic dictator God. Again. I just flatly deny that what you say is true.

You can't win a rational argument by just asserting things.

I wasn't talking about atheists. I was talking about everyone. In a world without God, it is OK to make other people suffer, which is not very cool.

This is both wrong and offensive. Atheism does not imply immoriality. Please stop repeating the same falsehood in different forms.

I'm sorry, and I'm not trying to be offensive, but I don't think I'm wrong. I disagree with the atheistic ideology, and the extent it can be applied to.

False and offensive. Einstein explicitly denied any God who cared whathumans do or don't do.

Einstein denied God's who offered punishment, but he believe in a God who set the order to things. In this form, he is semi-theistic.

You seem to have a problem with pleasure. What is the deal with that?

Yah, actually I do, if you understand the context of pleasure that I am using it in, that is, something that is rationalized mostly for benefiting you.

I have a problem with pleasure in the way that it often comes at the expense of others.

After going through some things in life, I realized, what is the point of building up yourself by tearing down others, when you can build up yourself by building others?

It's one of the reasons I find little point in debate - unless I consider it as making the other person a better person.

Sorry to say that this doesn't make sense to me.

MMMM.... let's uses Blinky's wand of link assignment (sorry, nerdy comp sci video).

Mormon 9:31

Humans make errors, in other words, and God isn't at fault for them.

Again, that is true without God isn't it now.

Not in my heart no, there will be an end to injustices, that there will. For I believe in God.

It is hard to even read that. You literally don't know what you are talking about.

Well, I do not understand what is hard to read tbh... you'll have to show me which part of that you don't understand, cuz I am pretty sure I know what I'm saying, that I am.

Again, I don't dislike atheists, I dislike the ideology of atheism. Your not trying to show me atheists are ok, your trying to show me the idealogy of atheism is ok. And I dislike the ideology of atheism greatly.

[Analytics]

...

Second Point: Because there is no reward or punishment, there is no absolute right or wrong

...

This seems to be a key element of your argument, and I want to make sure I understand you. Do you mean to suggest that the existence of reward and punishment is what causes there to be absolute right or wrong? For example, being a nice guy is the "right" in an absolute sense, because God rewards people who are nice?

[TAO]

This seems to be a key element of your argument, and I want to make sure I understand you. Do you mean to suggest that the existence of reward and punishment is what causes there to be absolute right or wrong? For example, being a nice guy is the "right" in an absolute sense, because God rewards people who are nice?

Here, this'll explain it a bit better:

2 Nephi 2:13 And if ye shall say there is ^ano law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not ^bthere is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

Na, what I mean is that without God, there is no law. And therefore, there is no sin (or things that are wrong). Therefore right and wrong cease to exist, as do happiness and misery and punishment. They all cease to be absolutes, but instead become words bent by men.

[elguanteloko]

A very good answer.

good.

And I am suggesting that those feelings did not come from natural selection.

so I guess it wasn't such a good answer after all, I guess, since you continue to repeat your position without addressing what your opponent says at all.

That feeling of compassion, especially for strangers, is going to be difficult/impossible for the evolutionists to demonstrate.

Can you tell me, please, what would constitute evidence for you that compassion came through evolution?

I also suggest that Stalin is the epitomy of what the result of natural selection would be.

so you apparently say mine was a good answer but you didn't seem to get my point since you just continue to repeat.

Those of my faith call it the Light of Christ, which enlightens every person.

The evolutionists will just have to add it to the list.

...