well, there is some vegetable or plant that we share 60-70% of our dna, so my question still stands, even if its not a banana

With regard to the bolded, I am answering your reasoning for why we should care, not talking about evolution. You stated that , because we share almost all our dna with the human race, we should care about the human race. We share almost all our dna with lots of things, does that mean we should care about these things? And care about them because we share dna?

I'm willing to stipulate that. I also have vestiges of belief in ghosts ,vampire,
the bogey man and who knows what else I'm not even aware of.
I bet Christians have some vestiges of humanism that they are not even aware of. Example if you were part of an army commanded by God
to commit Genocide would you have a twinge of hesitation? I sure hope so.

As an atheist I strongly disagree. At its core, your argument seems to rest on this assumption, which seems to me nothing more than your opinion.

I read the question and don't really care either way. I think it would be interesting to have the world get dramatically better for my lifetime. But I don't know how I would feel about condemning billions of people (even though they would all be close to death anyway. Assuming no reproducing after 500 years.)

Part of me wants to think I would like to make the world better for me and my family now, but the other part makes me feel like I'm heartless for even considering literally ending the ****ing world.

But at the same time, who really cares how long the world goes on for? It doesn't affect me whether it's 600 years or 6,000,000 years. It's gonna end eventually so might as well make it better while I can.

I don't know what I would choose in the moment if given the choice. I feel like such a narcissist for even considering letting the world end to make it better for me and my family now. But I really think I could go either way with that decision.

I'd like the thank you for posting it though. It got me thinking and definitely something I'd like to ask my friends and family at the next get together. I'd like to see how they feel about being the ended of mankind. Most of them aren't atheist though. So seeing their points of view as say, an agnostic, will be interesting.

EDIT: and I think it's ridiculous to see people posting that atheist would be able to make the decision to end everyone easier than religious people. At the end of the day you don't see a bunch of atheists killing people just because there isn't a god. They don't do it because they are decent human beings. I'm not going to kill someone not because a god told me not to. I'm not going to kill someone because I'm not a ****ing killer. It's morally wrong. If I just killed someone in cold blood I couldn't live with myself after, and not because of fear of god, but because of the fact that it's a heinous act and no sane person can just kill someone and live with it afterwords.

And not to turn this into religious bashing. Most of my family is religious and I'd like to hear their thoughts. But I see senseless killings on the news that have been committed "because god said to" or prison shows where all these killers claim to be devout Christians. Or on a less serious issue than murder; I know more Christians that never make anything happen in their life, they just pray god gives them what they want. Or if someone needs help they don't get up and help them, they just "pray for them"

Religion doesn't mean anything when it comes to this choice. There are good people and bad people.

I must have been unclear in my post. So to be as clear as possible, the reason we care about the human race is because it is a human trait to do so, not because of our religion. Now the reason this is a human trait stems from evolution. The reason for that is kin selection, which need be neither
exact nor logical, only effective.
As to bananas, given a choice between a universe devoid of life
and one with plants, I strongly prefer the latter. I would even more strongly
prefer there be animal life. And among animal life I am partial to mammals
over say insects. Whether any of this is because of the # of genes I share
with them is debatable, I doubt evolution goes to those lengths.

Actually I do not think he was. While we are quite selfish we are not completely so religious or not. The cost of the end of humanity is so enormous
that most of us would pay a steep price to avoid it.
May I also point out that logically a Christian should not be as concerned
because what is desirable is determined by what God wants not by any
human standard, thus if God thinks the world should end it would be good if it did.

So you are retracting your initial statement?


You said


Which implies that the reason we should care about the human race is because we share almost all of their genes.

Now you are saying its nothing to do with genes at all?

Here is what I said
"
An implicit assumption of your question seems to be that Atheist are immoral or should logically be so. A common Theist tactic that is refuted by the evidence and reason. Not to mentions extremely offensive. Morals are a human trait because of evolution, and are shared by us all regardless of faith.
To answer to your query: We are selected for maximum long term reproductive success. That means we care for the welfare of our descendants. Humans share almost all of their genes, hence we should care about the Human Race almost as much as our own children.
"
I'm not sure where your confusion lies.
So again. Morality is a human trait(see bolded part) The reason morality is a human trait is evolution selected for it. And the fact that we share
so many genes with other humans is part of the explanation of evolution having selected for the behaviour of acting morally towards other humans.

I am confused about your sentence

Hence means "it follows that" , and so you seem to be saying that, because humans share almost all of their genes, it follows that we should care about the human race almost as much as our own children. That is, the reason for caring , you say, is because we share genes.

Yes in that it justifies via a chain of statements why we
care. It works like this A because of B which follows from C which in turn
is because of D. So A can be said to follow from B as well as C and D.

At any rate this is all peripheral the main point is that Humans care about
the future of Mankind. That is why they will sacrifice to secure it.
No persuasion needed.

No wait I reread what I wrote and I actually stated the justifications first not last.

Originally Posted by diafoetoe View Post
Your talking around 99% (other humans) vs. around 30% (bananas).
If you think 30% is almost as much as 99% then sure.
BTW our morals are a product of evolution. Those who care for their children and kin will on average leave more descendants then those who do not.
This is as precise as evolution need be, figuring out the exact # of genes one shares, or even being logically consistent is not necessary.
well, there is some vegetable or plant that we share 60-70% of our dna, so my question still stands, even if its not a banana



With regard to the bolded, I am answering your reasoning for why we should care, not talking about evolution. You stated that , because we share almost all our dna with the human race, we should care about the human race. We share almost all our dna with lots of things, does that mean we should care about these things? And care about them because we share dna?[/QUOTE]

But evolution is the reason we care about those whom
we share most of our genes with.
And no I'm not arguing that we should care because of this I'm saying we do care because of it. As to vegetable life as I said before
we do care some for it but 60% or 70% is not really comparable to like 99%. Also we share a common ancestor with plants so long ago
that it could no longer be a factor.

no chain of reasoning arrives at a "should" from the fact "we share most of our genes with other humans"

But evolution is the reason we care about those whom
we share most of our genes with.
And no I'm not arguing that we should care because of this I'm saying we do care because of it. As to vegetable life as I said before
we do care some for it but 60% or 70% is not really comparable to like 99%. Also we share a common ancestor with plants so long ago
that it could no longer be a factor.[/QUOTE]

I don't care about your dna. I care about my dog more than you.

I care about dogs in general more than I care about chimpanzees in general.

I care about my friends more than I care about my brother or my cousins' children.

That is the way it is, and the way it should be.

first of all, i don´t see why this should be a thought experiment merely for atheists (which philosophically is a nonsensical term anyway, because every believer is an atheist with the exception of regarding the god/ gods he was born into believing in).

second of all this is sort of a riddle for drug addicts. let´s rephrase the question: suppose there is a drug that will make you feel better in every imaginable way, but once it wears off, it will kill you. only a person with a terminal disease or some psychological malfunction will want to take the drug.

but back to the original question:

instead of applying that technology we should keep studying to find a solution that makes the world better for everyone without destroying the planet.

as a short answer to the question "why should an atheist be opposed to it"?

because we can do better than that!


now for a change let´s just suppose that life on earth could be more enjoyable for every man, woman, no matter what race, age, sexual orientation, you name it. all we´d have to do is give up religion, superstition, esoteric nonsense, any belief in the preposterous.

all you´d have to do to make the world a better place for everyone is to give up a belief in the reality of a fairytale.

why would a christian (or any believer for that matter) be opposed to that?


that actually is not just a thought experiment, it really would make the world a better place.

Your right should is the wrong word and I misspoke. I did not mean that evolution obligates us to care for those who share a large # of genes with us (evolution being amoral) only that it causes us to.
But regardless of the explanation, I believe it that most of us care about the future of the Human Race. Thus we would not need to persuade
people to try and save said future.

I don't care about your dna. I care about my dog more than you.

I care about dogs in general more than I care about chimpanzees in general.

I care about my friends more than I care about my brother or my cousins' children.

That is the way it is, and the way it should be.[/QUOTE]

Even the above does not necessarily contradict the theory.
As I see it evolution cannot select directly for us making an exact calculation
of others DNA. It can make us care for those we spend time with, as for most of our evolutionary past those would be members of our tribes who would share a lot of our DNA. As to dogs I've read some theories that in some ways pets mimic our children which would explain our devotion to them. If I recall it had something to do with juvenile behaviour, comparatively large head and eyes. That one might not be that plausible I admit although some women do seem to use them as child substitutes.
However the main question is do you believe the most people
care about the future of Humanity? Because that is the main point in my original post relevant to DS's question.

Implying it seems to me that atheists are completely selfish and those who aren't can't be true Atheist.

This is really an ancient pastime if you ask me, trying to show that those who do not belong to the same group as oneself are somehow inferior. i.e. if you are not of my religion, ethnicity, nationality, class or gang etc, you are less smart or good-looking, or courageous, or patriotic or moral etc.
This sort of thing is really not worthy of someone as smart and rational as I always thought he was.

oops I misread something