a reply to: darkbake
There are many atheists who would like to see us only do things that have a purpose, which to them is rooted in evolution, these are the
I believe that there is an ulterior motive in that kind of thinking in that it takes away individuality and freedom and makes people believe that it
is their duty to work for the state and not indulge in "arbitrary" matters
I see the point you’re trying to make here, but conflating atheism with social Darwinism is NOT something I would ever condone. Social Darwinism is
what led to the creation of the eugenics program and it was in part what enabled Hitler to do what he did during World War 2 (the Jews were inferior
people and needed to be put down for their own good, etc.) It may have been possible to justify it with atheism, but I read somewhere that Hitler was
more of a deist or even a strict theist rather than an atheist.
The only thing atheism entails is a lack of belief in deities. Even more “extremist” atheists who explicitly deny the existence of a god lack a
belief in deities. This is the only thing that all atheists have in common. Everyone, on both sides, is guilty of pigeonholing. It helps a person
explain the way the world works, and this is just the way things are.
These Atheists will have you believe that there is no soul and no free will - but the example with the Chimpanzees is an isolated example of
free will in action - there was no evolutionary purpose to the blades of grass.
If that’s how you conceptualize free will, I have no problem with that. Acting on instincts can be just as freely willed, such as when you get an
idea that seemingly comes from nowhere and you act on it.
The soul, according to my definition, is what generates our free will and experiences life - neither definition has been disproved by science,
and there are many more advanced studies that show evidence of that kind of thing existing. My definition states that the soul is squarely in the
exploratory realm of science - something that both atheists and religious folk tend to deny.
If you are basing your philosophy on what hasn’t been disproven by science, I’m just not going to comment on what I think of that.
But it is an important way to look at things, because not only does the evidence support it, but we risk supporting oppressive governments if
atheist policy involving this kind of thinking gets into the upper ranks.
Yes, keep all those atheists away! They’re all baby-eating devil-worshipers. It’s impossible to know how a policy would be formed based on the
idea of a lack of a deity. It could just as well be argued that we all need to look out for each other because there’s no god to do it for us as it
could be that it’s “every man for himself.”
Social Darwinism is MUCH different, however.
The link in my signature has yet another link to my thesis paper for my psychology major, in which I researched the possibility of a Quantum
Theory of Mind, which I still fully support.
I’ll probably read it.
PS: The only thing I thought was questionable was your redefinition of terms, along with the low possibility that you are using the lack of evidence
against your theory as evidence of your theory. There is no evidence that there isn't a teacup orbiting pluto, either, but the odds appear so
unfathomably low that it is difficult to consider seriously.
One other thing is that you appear to be using a person's consciousness as his or her free will. I only hope you will consider things in the
department of social psychology. The relative gullibility of certain individuals certainly has implications about the quality of this free will you
may want to consider.
PPS: If you want feedback on your paper, let me know somehow that you would like it, whether that is through carrier pigeon, private messaging or a
reply to this post.