John, no, atheism does not presuppose the existence of evolution. Atheism is a single position on a single issue. It is the rejection of the existence of a deity, based upon the fact that the evidence for such a deity is lacking.
However, we are different. Some people are tall, some people are short. Some people are young, some people are old. Some people are smart, some are dumb. Some are physically fit, some are obese.
Thankfully, we are different. If we weren't, what a boring world this would be.
But that has nothing to do with inequality. The only equality anyone should concern themselves with is equality under the law, and equal economic opportunities.
Milton Friedman was once debating a bunch of communists, and said that they were hypocrites because they concern themselves with inequality, but they ignore inequalities that happen due to the genetic lottery. Some people are born to rich parents. If two people had jobs picking fruit from trees, the taller and stronger person would make more money because he could pick more fruit.
But suppose you were running a race. There's 20 runners, and one of those runners is a *really* good runner, and the rest of them are okay runners, but they're not anywhere close to as good as that really good runner.
Then you might wonder, if we only reward the winner of the race, then what is the incentive for the really fast runner to run as fast as he can? Will he try to break world records, or just run fast enough to win the race? How fast will the other runners try to run, when they have no hope of winning the race?
Capitalists often criticize communism and socialism because it creates sloth. It gives no incentive for anyone to try very hard. Here we can see that capitalism does the very same thing.
What if we instead rewarded the runners collectively? That they would be rewarded better if the total time of all the runners was as lower instead of higher?
What if we rewarded the fruit pickers, not by how much fruit any individual picked, but how hard each of them worked?
There are genetic inequalities. I don't look like Brad Pitt, and I'll never fuck Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie. Although, I did get to make out with Juliette Lewis one time (no, I'm not kidding). 
But genetics are so complex that it's impossible to say one set of genes are better than another. I'll never be as funny as Lewis C.K., but Louis C.K. will never be able to do electrical engineering work. I'll never make as much money as GaG, but GaG will never build tubed guitar amplifiers. Warwick Davis will never break any of the records set by Michael Jordan, but Michael Jordan will never be as good an actor as Davis.
Diversity isn't a detriment, it is an attribute. It allows all of us to have more than we otherwise would have. I can eat like a king, without knowing farming. It allows me the luxury of modern technology, modern medicine, and fucking hotter girls than Angelina Jolie. And you don't need a deity for that.
Dude -- you'll love ax84.com. I built the October and High Octane amps out of there and they rock.
Atheism is strictly speaking the belief in no deities. Sure. But now look at its biggest superstars -- people like Dawkins who advance evolutionary theory.
Any philosophical position requires certain presumptions. Religion explains the origin of people in various ways, whether allegorical or literal. Atheism needs a narrative to replace that ... and that narrative is evolution. Put 1000 atheists in a room and ask for a show of hands of those who don't accept evolution.
The problem with equality is it is a misconstrued idea. The original idea was equal treatment under law. If I murder someone I get the same punishment as anyone else for murder. The problem is that the idea has been extended beyond all sense and reason to what I would call "radical nurturance" -- that is, that all of our abilities and potentials are created by environment with no genetic input.
Common sense and observation tells us people are unequal. Not necessarily better or worse, but unequal. And I agree, there is nothing wrong with that.
Both capitalism and socialism/communism have their problems, and both can kill incentive -- I agree. The idea you advance of collective reward is an interesting one, and it is used for brainwashing of prisoners and military indoctrination quite successfully, but I don't believe it would work well at a larger scale because it would still kill the incentive of your best and brightest.
And here is the thing. Though those who are below average, average and above average all play important roles, it is only the best and brightest who define the capacities of a civilization. Suppressing them is death.
John, yes, I'm quite a big fan of ax84.com. The high octane amp is pretty awesome. Very similar to an Orange Tiny Terror, with the dual preamp control and the Class A power section. Although, I've got to admit I'm not the biggest fan of cathode followers. If you built it to spec, you could have fun by replacing R19 with 2 2k4 resistors in parallel, with a SPST toggle to switch between two values, get two different "modes" of gain. I would try replacing C9 with a 0.033uf cap. Ever used the Duncan EQ simulator?
"Atheism is strictly speaking the belief in no deities."
No, it isn't. Atheism isn't a belief. It is the position that the evidence for a deity isn't strong enough to believe. Just as when a court finds someone not-guilty, they're not finding them innocent. Atheism is the null position.
"But now look at its biggest superstars -- people like Dawkins who advance evolutionary theory."
An atheist may or may not accept evolution. Just as an atheist may be a Democrat, or may be a Republican, or may be a Libertarian. Evolution and atheism has nothing to do with each other. Dawkins promotes the idea of evolution, because he's a biologist and a scientist.
"Any philosophical position requires certain presumptions. Religion explains the origin of people in various ways, whether allegorical or literal. Atheism needs a narrative to replace that ... and that narrative is evolution."
I would certainly agree that most atheists accept evolution, but an atheist could just as easily just not have a position or a belief about our origins at all.
"The problem with equality is it is a misconstrued idea. The original idea was equal treatment under law. If I murder someone I get the same punishment as anyone else for murder. The problem is that the idea has been extended beyond all sense and reason to what I would call "radical nurturance" -- that is, that all of our abilities and potentials are created by environment with no genetic input."
Well, we do tend to ignore genetic input when it comes to our abilities. But I suppose the reason why we do is because paying attention to genetic variables would be seen as prejudice. When most people talk about economic equality, they rarely talk about what would actually be required to produce equality. Most people just would prefer that 90% of the income gains for the entire country not go to 1000 households. Not exactly an unreasonable position.
"...but I don't believe it would work well at a larger scale because it would still kill the incentive of your best and brightest."
How so?
"And here is the thing. Though those who are below average, average and above average all play important roles, it is only the best and brightest who define the capacities of a civilization. Suppressing them is death."
By and large, I agree, but it depends on what someone defines as the best and brightest. Suppressing the best and brightest on Wall Street might have saved us from a financial crisis. But I certainly don't want to suppress the best and brightest cosmologists who are working on solving unanswered questions in physics.
I'm always reluctant to give the best and brightest free rein, because no matter how smart they are, they will still make decisions based upon their own self-interest. The best thing about democracy is that it limits bad ideas, insofar that bad ideas are ideas that cause harm to others. The more inclusive a democracy is, the less likely any particular decision will harm one group of people.
-- Modified on 3/5/2014 1:54:52 PM
There is a big difference between the spiritual equality of genesis or acts 10, equality in the eyes of the law as described in the Declaration of Independence, and actual qualitative equality -- i.e. we are all just as tall, just as capable, etc.
Anyone who has ever read personal ads knows that women prefer taller men. Thus taller men are more likely to pass along their genes. Is it a pretty stupid thing to make an evolutionary decision based upon? Probably in the modern era, yes. But evolutionarily speaking, taller men probably had actual survival advantages.
And of course, just as different people have different genetic potentials for height, they also have different genetic potentials for immunities, intelligence and a host of other traits that will invariably affect their reproductive outcomes. Nature, in the only way Nature judges things, assuredly considers people unequal.
A belief in equality contradicts evolution and is hence a fundamentally RELIGIOUS (i.e. faith-based) belief.
In my book equality does not mean sameness, just equality under the law, and equality in that one has the same basic rights as a member of a society. Of course there will be leaders and followers. There will be those who are in their occupation based on their abilities and education, etc., etc. I think equality just means that, being human, you can be expected to be treated as though you have an innate basic dignity from being a member of the human race. Just like with pets, whether they be a cat, dog, bird, etc. should be treated with a basic level of humaneness.
If we were created in God's own image, and God is the creator of the universe, then I've got to ask. If God can see everything, everywhere, then why would guy need human-like eyes? We can't see everywhere or everything. You can't see ultraviolet light, or even radiation.
If the creator of the universe could exist anywhere and everywhere, and since most of the universe is just space, then why would a deity need legs? If you don't need to inhabit a planet, why would you need to walk? If you could touch anything at any time, then why would you need 2 arms?
Okay ... I'm not saying that what I am about to say makes any sense at all ... but you asked a specifically Christian theological question, so I'll give a theological answer.
We do not know what Adam and Eve looked like. We know that, as originally created, they were immortal beings.
When they became corrupted, they became mortal and had to flee the garden of Eden.
So what you see in front of you now as a human being may be quite different from the creature made in the image of deity.
Being created in the image of something doesn't mean an exact replica. You can see this in impressionist art as an extreme example. As mortal creatures, we would necessarily have limits and it is entirely conceivable that those limitations would have been beneficial for our survival. Insects see ultraviolet light and we don't. Thus, we don't get lured into pitcher plants and they do! lo
I hadn't considered that before.
Sometimes I ponder if a deity existed, wouldn't that deity be subject to evolutionary pressures too? Or at least be well suited to inhabit it's environment. So, wouldn't a deity just look like a giant blob of energy?
And can appear in any fashion he wishes. The answer to your question would then be YES*if he chooses*
The purpose of human legs is to allow human beings to walk. To hold us upright against the earth, to counteract the force of gravity. If God isn't subject to the laws of gravity, then why have legs?
If I were a deity, then I would appear as something that couldn't exist naturally. That way, people would have a pretty good idea that it was me, God. In the Bible, God shows up as a man, as a dove, as a burning bush, why didn't he ever show up as a dragon that breathed fire, but fire that froze things? A dragon that breathed a freeze-ray! Why doesn't he show up as a lion with 15 heads that shit gold bricks? I've burned a lot of bush myself in my day, but I've never confused a brush fire with a deity.
Humans have very limited capacities.
Just think of how hard it is to teach math to someone who has closed their mind.
Deities appearing as human makes them something more relatable to human experience. Its a way of taking something far beyond human understanding, and putting it into a very limited bite-size morsel humans can kinda-sorta relate to.
but I will grant you that I don't believe in equality either. We simply aren't equal, nor should we strive to be. We should strive to be the best we can be, but recognize our own limitations. The whole concept of equality is ridiculous.
For the record, I do believe in "equal treatment, before the law or otherwise" but equality is a pipe dream and one that only those losing at the game of life should aspire to. I would hate to think of myself as "equal" to someone like AF for example
