Atheism vs Christianity?

Atheism is not a scientific observation. NO scientific facts points to the God not existing.

In fact, the laws of thermodynamics point to the existence of God. It is impossible for the universe to be eternal. It is impossible for the universe to have produced itself out of absolute nothing with no cause. The first cause, the uncaused cause, had to be the self-existant eternal God.

Atheism runs counter to science an is an irrational philosophy.

Obviously the concept of self-sacrifice and love for your fellow man is vastly more moral than "survival of the fittest."

The quote you used to represent atheism is a concept from the theory of evolution, and more specifically Darwin's principles of natural selection. It's hardly representative of how atheists view life.

The idea of a soul (or an afterlife) is purely a man-made concept. It has no basis in reality, nor can it be tested. There is significant evidence in neuroscience and other branches of science that refute the idea that a person could possess a soul. Here's a great video on that concept: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA

Personally I think atheists have a healthier view of life. There's no evidence for an afterlife, therefore we tend to treat the one we've been lucky enough to have very well. Atheists also see the need for conditions to be improved for the next generations.

Christianity believes in an afterlife (and many times the "rapture" or "second coming"). This idea leaves little incentive to try to improve the existing world, since it's apparently all going to hell in a hand basket anyway, and only the saved matter after death.

What has survival of the fittest have to do with religious belief or lack thereof?

Also, survival of the fittest isn't a philosophical view point, as you seem to be suggesting. It's simply the idea that species with desirable traits which help them survive in their present environment are more likely to survive... kind of a no brainer.

Your link of evolutionary theory to "survival of the fittest" is oversimplistic to the point of being silly. It ignores the fact that much cooperative behavior among animals is evolved. Some have even evolved to the point of being eusocial, bees being the most obvious example. A worker bee cannot survive without a hive. It cannot even breed.

Just thought you might be interested to consider that.

That's apples and oranges.

Contrary to what your pastor might tell you, the theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with morality or ethics. Self-sacrifice in order to protect others is very noble and admirable.

Survival of the fittest is just a simpler way of saying "natural selection".

I think survival of the fittest refered to the animal realm where they don't have a civil life style and "No greater love has one than this, that one would lay their life down for their friends." refers to human life , where we do make friends and we do think !

Sure, the second one sounds prettier... but how many of these extremist Christians actually live by that verse?

And survival of the fittest is not a religious belief. It was an idea of Darwin's.

???????

Survival of the fittest is an evolutionary principle that explains the development of species over millions of years. How does that, EVEN REMOTELY, relate to sacrificing a life to save another person?

Survivial of the fittest can mean many things.

In a species that relies on altruism to survive, survival of the fittest is survival of those who would sacrifice themselves for their species.

I think that Love the best thing in this world, it is the most magical thing in this world, it is what every human wants and seeks, it is one good thing we have in common.. It is everything beautiful about this life.. Someone has to be the source of it.

GOD IS LOVE

"Survival of the fittest" is a pro war and selfishness quote if you ask me..

Dignity has very little to do with survival.

Your statement is fitting only for someone with a full belly, who is not being shot at, chased by wild animals or caught up in some natural disaster.