The difference between a human and a rock

Well, it's fairly obvious, isn't it? People don't want to be "smashed", whereas rocks don't have any opinion one way or the other.You seem to be suggesting that atheists should treat humans and rocks the same way, since in the broadest terms atheists attribute the existence of both to the same cause, namely the laws of nature.But, after all, theists also attribute the existence of humans and rocks to the same cause, namely God doing magic. Does that mean that theists should treat humans and rocks the same?And, if it comes to that, we both attribute the existence of beef and of bullshit to the same sort of cause, namely the biological processes of cattle. Does it follow from this that whoever eats beef ought to eat bullshit?---Finally, let's turn it around.Fundies believe that rocks and humans have the same primary cause, namely God doing magic. Yet fundies believe that humans who don't follow the fundie faith should burn forever in hell; yet they do not believe that equally un-Christian rocks should burn forever in hell. They attribute the existence of atheists and the existence of rocks to the same cause, namely God doing magic --- on what grounds, then, do they hate their fellow human beings so much more than they hate rocks?

And? They think that it's God's will. They think that God's will should be done.---Your perplexity is itself perplexing. You point out that atheists think that rocks and humans have one thing in common, and then wonder why atheists don't treat rocks and humans exactly the same.Well, I think that "Bolder-dash" and bicycles have one thing in common, namely beginning with the letter B. Yet I wouldn't try to ride you down the street.The answer to your question is that just because I think two very dissimilar things have one thing in common doesn't mean that I treat them identically. Because the fact that they have one thing in common doesn't magically make all the differences between them disappear.

Apparently, you are a sociopath.But I am not.It seems that you really do need the threat of burning in Hell to keep you on the straight and narrow --- that you cannot even conceive of a motive for moral behavior except a brute instinct for the avoidance of punishment.However, I can. It involves loving my neighbor.

No. As I have demonstrated myself (as I mentioned just the other day on a thread that I know for a fact that you have read) it is favored by the law of natural selection. It's not a motive, it's a cause.The motive is that I do in fact love my neighbor, even though I do occasionally become irritated by his habit of spouting evil stupid wicked nonsense. The cause is, as I have demonstrated, evolution.

So try it. If you think you'd get on better by behaving like a complete asshole, do so, and see how far you get.I notice that you do in fact use the "complete asshole" strategy on the Internet, where there are no negative consequences. But if you had the courage to be this much of a jerk in real life, then you would discover that it does indeed have selective disadvantages.

As I pointed out on the other thread, natural selection does favor cooperation between individuals in any case where individuals have some benefit to gain from cooperating.In the case of humans, this benefit is the hallmark of our species. We are the ultimate eusocial species. Do you grow all your own food? Generate all your own electricity? Supply all your own water? Make all your own clothes, having made your own needles and thread? Did you build your own computer and then build your own Internet so that you could scream evil nonsense at us?You did not.Your very survival, not to mention your opportunity to preach stupid immoral garbage at us (as, it seems, is your choice) depends on your ability to fit into human society. Therefore, your ability to do so is selectively advantageous.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Your fantasies about me reveal a lot about you, and nothing about me.I am, as it happens, very happily married. My wife is a constant source of joy and delight to me. Also, as you so crudely put it, she does offer me the opportunity to "get laid". Though that is not why I love her.Thank you, though, for trying to reduce the debate to who "gets laid" more often. You are fulfilling all my expectations of a creationist --- a crass materialist who only thinks of material gratification.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Frustrated by the fact that atheists are better than you, you are apparently trying to persuade atheists that they should be as wicked and cynical as you.It seems that you want to persuade me that, since I'm an atheist, I should therefore be a thief or a rapist or a murderer.Well then --- suppose you succeeded? Suppose that I swallowed your evil and stupid arguments. What then? I should go to jail, and my hypothetical victims would have been robbed or raped or murdered. Whom would you have benefited?Even if your arguments were completely right, rather than evil nonsense, should you not keep them to yourself? Even if you were to win this argument, the result would be that you would turn me into an evil person who would do evil to other people.What happened to "love thy neighbor"?Now when I talk to fundies about their morality, I try to make them into better people. I tell them that since Jesus said "love thy neighbor", they shouldn't be so full of hate; and I tell them that since one of the Ten Commandments is "thou shalt not bear false witness", they should lie less often. I try to bring them up to the standard of morality preached in the Bible.Of course, since I am preaching virtue to fundies, I shall fail; and, of course, since you are preaching evil to atheists, you will fail. Both arguments are equally a waste of time. But at least it would be a good thing if I succeeded in influencing fundies to become good people. Whereas it would be a terrible thing if you managed to persuade atheists to be evil.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Since I have shown that there is a massive selection pressure that must inevitably produce exactly our concept of morality, no invisible sky-fairies are necessary.