Quote from: Tekkna on June 23, 2013, 06:28:07 AM

Quote

The belief that the universe was empty, then it wasn't, then splat you have a god who then goes on to create the entire Universe.

God is the eternal self-existing one, there was never a time when God was not present.

Why can't the universe be the eternal self-existing one, with there never being a time when the universe didn't exist? More importantly, since time is a function of matter, velocity, and space, time could not have existed without the universe. In other words, the father you go back to the point of the Big Bang, the slower the time moves, until it reaches zero, I.e. time did not exist. So, how could god exist before time? Any sort of action of his part would require change over a period of time, but if there was no time...?

Quote from: Tekkna on June 23, 2013, 06:28:07 AM

Interesting, do you have source for charitable DNA? And what do you see as the primary advantage of charity, doesn't that conflict with Social Darwinianism?

Just biology and sociology. There are many examples of species that are social and tribal in nature, just like us, who take care of others within their pack who might have fallen on hard times. Wolf packs are very well known for this, bringing food and caring for expectant and new mothers, and even those of their pack who get injured. Darwinism isn't survival of the fittest, it's survival of whoever can propagate their species the best, whether that be as individuals (hawks, turtles), or as social packs (ants, bees, wolves, dolphins). Charity, or specifically caring for vulnerable members, provides greater safety and security of a pack, and it's easier to help the injured recover and come help you hunt and defend your territory than to breed a new replacement. Especially since you'll be preserving already established wisdom and knowledge.

Quote from: Tekkna on June 23, 2013, 06:28:07 AM

Further, Christians are more likely to be charitable, as charitable-ness is a command in Christianity, I reject that people are simply using Christianity as an excuse to be charitable.

Could it be that feely-cary types are simply more attracted to a philosophy that already fits their feely-cary nature? The question is, does Christianity make someone go from an uncaring a-hole to a caring person, or does it selectively attract caring people and rejects uncaring a-holes? If it's the latter, then those who are caring and charitable, but who couldn't be gullible enough to be convinced by Christianity's claims, will still be the same caring and charitable people. They just wouldn't be associated with Christianity. The other issue is that Christianity and other religions demand one to be charitable, so it's much more likely for Christians to constantly loudly proclaim about how charitable they are, to prove that they are good Christians and are following the rules. Secular charities don't have anything to prove to anyone, so they wouldn't be advertising about how charitable they are because of their atheism on city billboards.

Quote from: Tekkna on June 23, 2013, 06:28:07 AM

Athiests might be charitable, if they want to loose the extra money, or time, but experience speaks that unless you have an over abundance of either you are unlikely to be charitable. Humans are inherently greedy (which I doubt you would dis-agree with, even from a purely atheistic world-view).

Yeah, I disagree with that. Humans generally help each other out. You see that most prominently on smaller scale, around neighborhoods, especially after a severe snowstorm or flood. People come out to help out neighbors dig themselves out our clean up the mess, regardless of what their religion is. Besides, one of the biggest philanthropists in the world, who has given more to charity than anyone else, is an atheist, while one of the richest Christians in the world outside of the Vatican, has given practically nothing to charity. I'm peaking of Bill Gates and Pat Robertson.