Because if you don't read my statements in the context of my definition you can't really address my points and the debate goes nowhere. I don't make the rules; I just pick a set and go with it, so to speak.

This one, aka the Scientific Method. This is what I mean when I say science. Now stop being silly.

Edit: Seriously? CopyPasta from the Book of Thoth? And you mean for me to take you seriously?

Debate is an opportunity to learn. It may never be possible to determine how the Universe began, but it's interesting to speculate, dammit. Who cares where it happens?

Yeah, no. Not happening. I'll try and piece it together as I go.

Your analogy doesn't really fit. Appearance of design does not equate to evidence of design. We know that elephants exist, and that they produce dung, therefore their dung is evidence that they exist.

What you've done here is begin with a conclusion and search for evidence to support it. This is not how science works.

Personal experience is not evidence. How do you know you're not experiencing a delusion? I wouldn't take meeting the designer of the Universe as evidence of his/her/its existence, either. How do I know it really happened? Our senses are not immutable and concrete. Schizophrenics believe a number of things, but do you believe one when he tells you God made him drown his children? Think about it.

Before you leap to conclusions, no, I'm not implying that you're crazy. Just that you, like everyone else, are human.

1. I don't. I don't care if the human race lives on. I mean, I care if the next few generations or so live a comfortable life, because humans are (I'd like to think) largely altruistic. Much has been written on why we are so.

2. I don't. I imagine many others do because of their personal values. Or perhaps it's their response to our instinctual drive to produce offspring (you can see where this is going).

3. I answered this in my response to question 1.

4. The animal doesn't CARE about passing on his genes. He's genetically predisposed to do so. He's only responding to his natural instinct to mate. Again, if we weren't naturally drawn to it, our species wouldn't exist. There's no thought involved, at the lowest levels. Organisms that are genetically drawn to mate will naturally mate more than those that aren't . Those that aren't will naturally die out. Continue that trend in evolutionary development for a few billion years and tell ME why the animal works so hard to pass on his genes.

5. I already answered this. It has nothing to do with memory. It's genetic predisposition.

No problem. ; ]

Figured I'd clarify anyway.

As would I. I never said, nor meant to imply, that we HAVE to follow our instincts. I was stating that they are what they are.

So have I. This isn't from personal experience, but from people like Richard Dawkins and others who have likely met a great deal more Atheists than you or I, and have dedicated much more time finding out just what the most common "trends" in thought are.



The point I'm making is that there are a lot of things that haven't been "ruled out" by scientists. They haven't ruled out that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the Universe, or that there isn't a small china teapot orbiting the sun. Nothing has to be ruled out unless it is determined to be an option. There is no evidence FOR Intelligent Design, so why should anyone HAVE to rule it out?

I never said that science has all the answers. They do, however, have many of them, and they have the most accurate method for finding them: The Scientific Method.



And you quote only the first paragraph of two because...? We are drawn to mate. You admit it yourself. I know we have the power to overcome our instincts, and evidently should have stated so. I never said we are mechanical, and HAVE to follow our baser instincts, but simply that they ARE our baser instincts, because they have to be.



pur⋅pose
  /ˈpɜrpəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pur-puhs] Show IPA noun, verb, -posed, -pos⋅ing.
–noun
1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.

By definition 1, we have no purpose other than that which I stated. We exist because our parents (respectively) mated. We exist to do the same.

By definition 2, there is no ultimate purpose, and your statement is correct. Only we as individuals can determine our own purpose.

However, we've addressed two different definitions in our respective posts, and the disagreement is one of semantics rather than philosophy.

That article is rather interesting. I imagine because shorter, heavier women are more physically fit for childbirth, the genes responsible will permeate the gene pool more than those that result in taller, thinner women. After all, they're having more children. I'd really like to get my hands on the study that was published in the NAS journal.

Technically, with evolution the "original thing" DOES disappear. For example, we did not evolve from modern apes. We share a common ancestor (that 'disappeared'). Populations evolve due to changes in the environment. The original species generally disappears because it HAD to evolve to survive due to new environmental pressures. If humans do eventually evolve to such a degree that we can no longer be considered human (strange concept, that) it would be due to environmental pressures we can't really predict. There are too many factors, I'd think, to accurately predict such large-scale changes. We'd have to factor in technology, culture, geology, cosmology, etc., at which point the question becomes not what we evolve into, but whether it's worth the effort to make an accurate guess.

It does. They are called the four fundamental forces. Where they came from, why they are what they are, etc. are all unknowns. This is where science and religion part ways. Religion pretends to know what science admits it doesn't. The problem comes when science discovers that what religion "knows" is wrong.

I'm an atheist, but like the vast majority of atheists, I don't pretend to know that there isn't a divinity, the supernatural, etc. I simply find no compelling reason to believe in either. Most atheists can be classified technically as agnostic, since no one can possibly KNOW that there isn't a god(s). I, like most atheists, lean strongly towards the idea that the observable, material world is all there is.

Atheists don't pretend to have all the answers (though the National Academy of Sciences is largely atheist, and they certainly have more answers than you do, lol), at least not those who are educated.



You're inserting necessity where there is none. There are four fundamental forces that govern the Universe. Gravity, Strong and Weak Nuclear forces, and Electromagnetic force govern how elements form, how they interact, and how "order comes from chaos." This is determined from hard, empirical evidence. Not from the desire for it to be so, which is largely the basis for spiritual thought.



Bollocks. Your purpose is to propagate your species. It is the result of approximately 2 billion years of evolution. The desire to survive and mate has been encoded in your DNA. Had it not been the most important part of your genetic makeup our species would have been eliminated by Natural Selection.

That being said, I obviously don't feel that we should be like 'lesser' animals and simply behave like, well, animals just because we are. We have incredibly powerful brains, and we all desire to be happy. We have one life to live, so why not enjoy it whilst propagating our species? lol.

But to say that anything above our basest impulses is our PURPOSE, however, is to be mistaken.

Well, I'm done rambling now...

I'm not in that situation, so I can't know for sure, but I think they just either really want to be women, for whatever reason (they feel more like a woman, they have some deep-seated hatred for being a man, etc.), or they just feel sexy like that. I wear specific articles of clothing designed for women (no, not THAT) simply because it fits and shows off my body more effectively than men's clothing.

But wearing the whole outfit, etc. is going way overboard, and I still don't really understand why they do it.

Thank you, and yes, lots of butter.

I am the Unholy Spirit. I bring reason and wisdom to the willfully ignorant. Tee hee...

Are newbies allowed to have popcorn?

I've studied both major schools of satanism, and neither appealed to me. I just can't believe in the existence of a supreme evil being yet not consider it a god. If it can't be destroyed by its rival, then it is no less powerful. Therefore, if there is a god(s) of positive aspects, then there must be a god(s) of the opposite.

So no, I've never performed satanic rituals. lol.