Sir George [Swam Out To Sea]

He obviously goes against so many liberal minded thoughts, beliefs, and concepts. Darwin was a naturalist, not a proclaimed liberal or conservative. Also he was of no religious affiliation.

Excerpt from the official unedited text of: Chapter 5 - On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties During Primeval and Civilised Times

_______________________

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.

---------------------------

Please discuss, also I am not by any means against Darwin. I fully support the honorable man in what he says here being a naturalist and agnostic myself.

If any of you have taken the time to read Epicurus, we see that he too opposes mythology/folklore and religion/paganism the same way as Dawkins does. Many of his famous quotes are just as clever and staunch as climaxes in Dawkins' work. Of course one used philosophical and naturalistic logic while the other one used modern day Evolutionary Biology.

Moreover, did the ancient Greeks discover the whole concept of atheism? The first writing of the word goes back to an ancient Greek tablet as "atheos" and can be seen in photo on the wikipedia page for atheism.

Nonetheless, one will say atheism cannot be invented and originally all lacked belief until belief was invented. But let's be real, there's a difference between a philosopher who is intellectually logical and rational enough to discard religion as opposed to a cave-man who is too stupid to understand religion and thus doesn't believe it.

While atheism is purely a lack of belief and not a belief and this technically requires nothing (ideals, concepts, subjects) to put into it, my contention isn't a request but rather an observation. Doesn't it seem that modern day atheism is more or less a product of increased libertarianism than science? I mean sure the sciences have advanced, but science is such a vast subject that not all related to the question of a divine-being. A lot of the science we relate to for atheism tends to be Darwin which has existed for an ample amount of time. It seems to me today that many people are using "science" to justify their atheism when I think they really mean "libertarianism". A lot of these people I spoke to are not scientists, have any degree in the sciences, take any science courses, and spend little time with science in their free-time. (I am a college student, so you know what group I'm talking about). So it ticks me off a bit when these people not only dully generalize the beauty and complexity of science by overusing the word, but also that they have little to no involvement in as opposed to someone like me.

I have school which I am very serious about so I only drink on weekends.

So this weekend:

Friday night: Entire bottle (750ml) of Royal Canadian Whiskey (40% alc.)

Saturday night: Entire bottle of Japanese Sake (16% alc), entire bottle of Italian wine (15% alc) and six bottles of Stella Artois beer (6.5-7% alc)

I am 20 years of age, male, and a big build 250 pounds.

Hi guys I need help. I am (after years of fighting this) 100% I have a depression disorder that is one out of the two listed in the title. The phases occur every day regardless of what I eat, drink, sleep, etc. Everyday the symptoms get worse and worse and suicide is very high in my mind. I need meds but I have no prescription, and no money on my own to go visit a clinic nor are my parents supportive. Where can I find meds, herbs, remedies to ease this? Idk what to do. I have no one to turn to. I have no friends, no social life, no love life. There is no one and I am really scared of dying.

What was before all this complex and rich forms of life in this supermassive (or atleast it seems) universe. What was before the big bang? Nothingness? What is nothingness? And why did it all come to be? How was there absolutely nothing and nothing at all and it became something and so much something?

I feel this is an answer both theists and atheists have trouble answering....or atleast from my experience. I myself am a philosophical deist, but it doesn't bias my question.

So as a moral and social dilemma, let's say I'm a suicidal atheist. Before I kill myself, what in this world would keep me from buying an armory and shooting down everyone who has ever done wrong to me, and without care if other innocent were slain as well?

This is not for serious, and it is a fictitious dilemma question nor is it targeted against other of any religious views, just focus on the question itself...

"Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place. --Richard Dawkins, as told to Emily Hourican, in The Dubliner. Via Mark."

What a callous, wrongheaded statement.

The Catholic upbringing, terrifying children with fears of Hell and telling boys who will inevitably masturbate that masturbation is a terrible sin, can indeed be harmful. But Dawkins is way, way out of line comparing it to -- no, considering it worse than -- the sexual abuse of children.

Discuss.

Please don't mind me as a troll, I'm not; rather I am a student of neurology and genetics. Recently I had the great pleasure of hearing a speech from Sir James Watson. In his speech he claimed to be some sort of an atheist-agnostic, and I am as well, just to clearify this with the spirituality section. But the matter came up of how much our genes impinge on who we are in terms of value.

So I ask this fundamental question: If there is no higher-power, and people are purely the physical organisms that they are, what is the point of beleiving, regarding, and accepting human equality? Just like religion, it has no proof, no empirical evidence or suggestion, and has been greatly proven astray with genetics and other forms of study such as neurology. Particularly, when it comes to analyizing the inferior and superior in intelligence, physical ability, mental state, disabilites, and even beauty (even though this is more qualitative than quantitative) and it's relation to race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or simply just the individual, and the darwinian or other societal outcomes due to the relevancy of such factors of an individual.

Apologies for the great wording; and while it might seem this question is aimed at the irreligious, it can be answered by anyone. So what what is your opinion?

As a life long atheist, since when has it become common (as in my personal life and meetings) for other atheists to throw secular humanism, certain human rights, libertarianism, and such forth on me for choosing to be an atheist? While these things might be related to atheism, they definitely are not atheism. Last time I checked atheism wasn't a religion and there were no morals, ethics, philosophies,or political theories attached to it. It was simply the lack of belief in god(s) and/or deities. So many atheists condemn me on my views which I might relate or base off of my atheism such as devaluing human life, supporting eugenics and natural selection, Darwinian social theory, and biological determination. While I admit many of those things are wrong in the subjective sphere of let's say ethics, it's my right to believe in them and relate it to my atheism like the human secularist does his. But who are they to tell me how to treat it, observe it, think about it, and relate to it? It's NOT a damn f*cking religion.

While I know most atheists don't do this, seriously wtf? Then they call me dull, close-minded, and not a true atheist or not one of their "own". I guess I won't be able to get their baptism or attend sunday mass since I'm not in the "group"......because atheism is as much as a religion and stamp collecting is not a hobby which they then say after I point out what they said. Damn arses. What would you do?

Also if you don't like the way I am an atheist and what I use it for, go jump off a bridge before you criticize me on here.

After all we don't know the pure origins of atheism since it is a belief system. However the first accounts with proof and evidence all come from Ancient Greece, not like France as so many individuals say.

The word 'atheist' is a Greek one, and the first account of it to ever be written was on a tablet in ancient Greek thousands of years ago. If you look at the wikipedia or britannica articles on atheism you can see this tablet as the main photo:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba...

Not to mention that the first claimed individuals and reasoning/writings of atheism came from ancient Greece as well....

First atheist philosopher? Socrates

First atheist artist? Pyrgoteles

First atheist scientist? Archimedes

First atheist biological scientist? Hippocrates

First atheist activist and thinker? Epicurus

First atheist statesman and politician? Plato

First country to bring atheism into the publish sphere? Ancient Greece

First country with atheist/agnostic rights? Ancient Greece after the execution of Socrates.

First country with secularism? Ancient Greece

First country with teachings in atheism/agnosticism in education? Ancient Greece

First country to claim majority in intellectual population of atheist/agnosticism? Ancient Greece

First country to forbid/abolish state religion and put religion on second level to science, reason, logic, and possibly atheism? Ancient Greece.

While these may sound exaggerated, my proof is within the Cambridge University Anthology Multi-Volume set (8th Edition) on Ancient History which is considered the best historical work on ancient history in the academic world from professors and writers from all the best institutions on historical academia.

First off, this is a purely academic question and isn't by any means meant to imply anything on either belief system.

So all in all we know that within the last century the two most evil epochs and regimes they were caused by are the fascists (most notably the Nazis) and the communists (most notably the Stalinists). However, why did they pick their state religious beliefs that they did?

When we look at communism (especially in the Soviet Union) the idealism of the teachings of Christ is emphasized that all should be equal, live communally, and respect one another regardless of race and ethnicity (even though that didn't work out fully). Also people should give and receive fairly and no one should have more than the other, that we are all equal and of equal value to society and life. In fact (from cultural anthropology courses I've taken) if we look at sub-societal groups both in Europe and American such as the Mestizos, the Amish, the Shakers, the Oniedans, and most other of these sub-groups that still exist and even before communism ever started we see that they claim to be strong Christian groups that emphasize their communal and productivity living methods. Many anthropologists estimate that they have more communal living than the soviet union did and emphasize practically the same characteristics of communism- such as no private living but living as one communally, not judging by race, ethnicity, or deformity, little to no private goods, and long work hours with equal consumption in resource such as food and water, along with little outside trading and business. We also see that these communities (including the soviet union) have little respect and expanding on the sciences unless it's for their own technology. We see this in Stalin as many historians claim that he didn't believe in evolution, yet supported atomic physics greatly for the development of atomic weapons for his military. Nonetheless we can see the comparisons.

With fascism we have a society that is much more based on science, and beleives greatly in evolution, genetics, and biological population spectrums. We also see how darwinian methods, eugenics, medical and societal judgment based on biologically determined-features, along with emphasis on a population with greater health, certain genetic beauty and physical capability, and even IQ rates and ethnicity and race. This is usually put on the spectrum of inferior and superior in human judgment. (Please note that none of this related to atheism.) So with such emphasis on the sciences (mainly no/unethical since there was a lot of misuse/misinterpretations, pseudoscience, and human rights violations involved from derived scientific) why was such a society proned to chose religion over atheism and/or non-religion as their state belief? We clearly have a society going against its chosen belief to interfere with nature and human rights so why not go with atheism which would have nothing against what they committed and remove and unnecessary system in the state to escape judgement or hypocrisy as their religious beliefs held. (Please note atheism for such a regime in means of removing a worthless entity, not modern atheism which is completely different in association with science and philosophy.)

While I am aware that the beleif systems of both of these regimes had little to nothing to do with their actions, the simple choice in belief was ironic. Note that both were ultra evil with fascism in nature more than communism with numbers of innocent killed. We see Mussolini at some points (and Hitler a bit) being against the church and anti-clerical but then go to emphasize religion- Mussolini even made it mandatory for catholic crosses to be put in almost every public area. Then we see Stalin and Mao at times supporting their countries' original religions and not taking full purges against them, however they also emphasized communistic atheism and both (especially Stalin) declared a state war against religion during both his great purges.

So why do you think? Again this question has nothing to do with modern atheistic or Christian beliefs, but rather a historical or societal inquiry on why such ended up as it did. Thanks for taking the time to answer, again this question is for academic purposes.

I'm currently saving up to buy this expensive vodka from Stoli, however is it worth it? I usually just do Chopin and Belvedere, would this one be much better? Also do you think I should go with Russian Standard instead?

So I finally decided to get a new pair, and I'm looking for ones just like his, any ideas? I asked this here because you people would know best. ;-)

Don't get me wrong, I love Dawkins, but it seems someone could make those connections easily. Also since similar biologists (such as Pinker or Lynn) have made those connections in similar research as Dawkins' "Selfish Gene".

In a literal sense, are all philosophers agnostic?

With respect to the afterlife, many people in modern times criticize the idea of an afterlife in modern deities and the hardship of theists learning to be without it in atheism. However what about the major forms of paganism (primarily in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome) that at most times if not all never guaranteed an afterlife to the "commoner" and only to the highest nobility or single ruler. That everyone else just ceased to exist and that was life and all there was to it. Paganism was vastly accepted and in an era where science practically did not exist and the understanding of nature and the world was merely a fraction of what it is today.

So how can we compare and contrast and view religion when it's so different than religion in primitive and ancient forms- which can even relate to atheism as well.

Please note, I am not biased and this is more of a historical interest question. :-)

Hi everyone. I’m currently doing a research proposal for an anthropology/philosophy class that touches upon political theory. My subject is whether a democratic/capitalist government/society could maintain itself under a full scientific expansion. Before I expand, I would like to say I have no bias and wish not to discuss religion and ethics itself but rather the possibility and outcome of a political situation. Based upon readings from Richard Flynn, Richard Dawkins, Howard Pinker and other biologists/sociologists whom have been considered controversial, Pinker brought out a good argument:

As science has been a means to escape immoral inequality from past history based upon myth and folklore (nobility, blood line, slavery, paganism) and has managed to create human equality, rights, and freedom. Mainly because it has allocated resources to best suit life (medicine, technology) and so forth. But as science expands, we see that controversy is beginning to increase. The image of God and religions are being challenged, human equality is being challenged (Pinker and the similar people I mentioned have done much work on IQ, physical agility, preferable genetic traits, and overall disorders and inferior traits based upon race, genetics(both by parental and family line), sex, geography, living conditions, economic class, social groups.

So if a society (theoretically) progresses towards this, would we see a problem in our society? Science would be the beholder of truth and what is. A capitalistic democracy that has allowed social and economic Darwinism to take almost full effect as Flynn and Pinker claim. Would we see problems arise in social classes to the point where people would no longer want to be “inferior” in terms of social class, economic abilities, and various individual aptitudes if we take such scientific to the next level. Would we be forced to dump the idea of a democracy or a capitalistic society and move to totalitarianism with socialism, fascism, or communism?

Surely, one might argue that you can never take away God from society as a whole and there will always be believers (or that atheists already exist everywhere in society regardless of class or IQ or profession), or that ethics in science and government would prohibit science from taking such a swing. But those are theoretical, and cannot be assured. However, for this research assignment I seek the probability of it, not actual happening or impossibility; rather “what if”. Again, this is a mere speculation for a class, nothing I said here is set in stone.

Thanks for taking the time to read this and help me, it means a lot by the way. ☺

Hi, I'm currently doing a sociological experiment with the University of Chicago as an undergraduate student, and I need (most preferably women; but men are welcome as well) to look closely at these four men (identities have been blurred for privacy reasons). Your instructions are as follows:

1. Choose whom you would most likely be attracted to and whom you would be least attracted to, or would rather most be in a relationship.

2. Would you mark or treat these people as socially inferior/superior (as in flirtatious actions, or more disagreeable looks upon the negative subjects in your opinion) in your everday being?

3. Give us a brief run down of all the men spotted in this research project, tell us things that stick out or are obvious and also things that you perceive personally.

4. (Optional) Any extra commentary upon the subjects. Possibly on genetic, clothing, or physical being.

The subjects are here:

VARIANT A: http://i37.tinypic.com/2w6ug74.jpg

VARIANT B: http://i35.tinypic.com/rihyxy.jpg

VARIANT C: http://i37.tinypic.com/2qixv1c.jpg

VARIANT D: http://i37.tinypic.com/oiyfc9.jpg

NOTE: All subjects used have given permission of their photographs to be used in this experiment by these means. Other usage of these photographs is prohibited. This experiment follows the ethic and moral code of the University of Chicago School of Biological Sciences.

Thank you for participating. A best answer will be rewarded.

Hi, I'm currently doing a sociological experiment with the University of Chicago as an undergraduate student, and I need (most preferably women; but men are welcome as well) to look closely at these four men (identities have been blurred for privacy reasons). Your instructions are as follows:

1. Choose whom you would most likely be attracted to and whom you would be least attracted to, or would rather most be in a relationship.

2. Would you mark or treat these people as socially inferior/superior (as in flirtatious actions, or more disagreeable looks upon the negative subjects in your opinion) in your everday being?

3. Give us a brief run down of all the men spotted in this research project, tell us things that stick out or are obvious and also things that you perceive personally.

4. (Optional) Any extra commentary upon the subjects. Possibly on genetic, clothing, or physical being.

The subjects are here:

VARIANT A: http://i37.tinypic.com/2w6ug74.jpg

VARIANT B: http://i35.tinypic.com/rihyxy.jpg

VARIANT C: http://i37.tinypic.com/2qixv1c.jpg

VARIANT D: http://i37.tinypic.com/oiyfc9.jpg

NOTE: All subjects used have given permission of their photographs to be used in this experiment by these means. Other usage of these photographs is prohibited. This experiment follows the ethic and moral code of the University of Chicago School of Biological Sciences.

Thank you for participating. A best answer will be rewarded.