There's a beautiful quote by Carl Sagan:

"Our Sun is a second- or third-generation star. All of the rocky and metallic material we stand on, the iron in our blood, the calcium in our teeth, the carbon in our genes were produced billions of years ago in the interior of a red giant star. We are made of star-stuff."

Our birth is not the beginning and our death is not an end, we are a part of an incredibly complex system which will not evaporate after we die. Our dead bodies will provide material to further build more life and, in extension, to build the universe - that's one of the most beautiful thoughts I have ever heard, and seems oh so much more appealing than 'someone will judge you and you will probably suffer until the end of eternity'.

Our consciousness will cease to be? Well I suppose we all should strive to do something for it to live on.

/end of philosophy with Fenixp

Precisely, as in the end of Alpha Centauri, if you can manage to finish an entire game.

I read an article awhile ago that stated that something like 1/3 of Asian people share common genes linked to Genghis Khan. If evolution is the right way to go then theoretically isn't rape as well? I mean, in the evolutionary scheme of things and all, shouldn't males be trying to impregnate all the females they can to spread their genes far and wide? Of course I'm not advocating this because I'm religious but it almost sounds like evolutionary minded people are making that the case. I mean who wins in the end? The man who has a few kids or no kids and his bloodline dies off completely or the rapist who's sired kids on every continent to the place that almost every single person in the world is related to him in some way and has to claim he was so great because they wouldn't be alive without his contribution to evolution.

Only an end of us personally, not as a whole. Though I say make the best of it with the time you have, and not live for some sort of life you'll supposedly have after you die. That line of thinking produces what I would call a false goodness in people just hoping to get to some imaginary pearly gates in the sky. And most of the time acts as treatment I would call appalling towards others.

Even puting morals aside this wouldn't work - both females and other males would try to stop such person. Males, because they can't pass their genes, females because they are not interested in this male.
Also, passing genes is not everything. For evolution to work one needs to care for his offsprings so they can pass his genes further. If a male does nothing else than passing genes, most (if not all) of his offsprings would die before they can procreate.

Virtually everybody has some sort of royalty in their blood line at some point. The main reason being that royalty had the resources to have a ton of children that were themselves in a position to do favorably with the opposite sex.

Sounded almost like he's saying athiests advocate rape.

Even allowing for that, the number of direct descendants of males in the immediate family of Genghis Khan is something extraordinary.

What is invariably overlooked by those who deny the credibility of evolution is that organized religion is itself a tool that powerful men use to force women to bear children for men who use the tools of the religion to control them. As such, it would be an evolutionarily stable strategy par excellence if there were shown to be any kind of inherited foundation for it.

Who needs rape when you can accomplish the same purpose by making submission and reproduction into religious obligations?

Huh? What does evolution have to do with morality or "the right thing to do"? Morality is a human concept - or a sentient concept at least. Sentient beings come up with it, you don't need it handed down to you by some Overbeing or science.

Source.

Also, individual humans are pretty pathetic. Communities and looking after each other were likely vital factors in the survival of the species, and though you might imagine that indiscriminate raping is great for proliferating one's genes, it's pretty bad for one's social standing.

The topic was evolution. Not morality. I do not condone rape. But if we're going to argue in favor of evolution and not religious morality then it does sound a lot like evolutionary minds are advocating that rape would be the way to go. After all, why let your bloodline die off? You have no morality if you're into evolution because evolution doesn't require morality. No other animal species has mortality. Male dogs rape female dogs all the time. Human males used to do this to until (DRUMROLL) religion. And even after religion a lot of males still raped but those men apparently didn't fully believe in religion and acted upon their primitive animal nature. If I'm wrong, then why has rape, or the ability to rape I should say, remained for so long? Seems like if evolution incorporated morality into its dynamics that it would have shed the rape gene long ago and it wouldn't be an issue anymore. But it still remains. It's obviously a part of nature. We see other animal species commit rape all the time. Homosexuals often use this as an argument to condone homosexuality in modern day society comparing humans with all the other animal species and stated that homosexuality is found in just about every animal species on the planet. Other animals also eat each other and human have demonstrated they will do the same if they are hungry. Read up on the Moche People of Peru. A matriarchal based society with only female leaders. They resorted to cannibalism when their society was plagued by a massive feminine and were no longer able to feed themselves. Males were sacrificed first to feed the hungry women and their young as males were considered highly disposable and less needed to keep the population going. They probably got the idea from insects that often sacrifice the male for consumption after impregnating the female. The male's body often becomes a meal for the female.

Anyways, rape is certainly a genetic thing. I'm not going to say it's a disorder because I don't want to offend any of you evolutionary types. Oh but you'll insist it is a genetic disorder because you don't want to be insensitive to the sensitive among us suddenly finding morality. How's that happen? Morality is a social construct after all and not a genetic one. A human caveman back before religion would clonk the female cavewoman over the head and drag her back to his cave and rape. There were no laws against it and there was no morality. There was kill or be killed. Rape or be raped. Eat or starve. These are the roots from which we came. Again, religion is the moral glue holding together and keeping us from being the savage beasts we really are. Civilization is nothing but a social construct. It's a mask for us to hide our true nature from ourselves. Because who do we fear the most? Ourselves.
Again, I'm not for rape. You are. But you're not. You just really don't know because you want to believe in evolution but then you want to hijack my religion at the same time while bashing on it. I'm just making a point. You seem to want your cake and eat it too. No way. Not going to happen. You're either for all natural evolution and rape fits into that as it is a natural thing. Or you're just a religious nutter like me who's toying with the idea of being all natural via evolution but too scared to go all the way out of fear of being insensitive.

Oh, I believe in evolution and not God, so I guess I'll go rape some girls, right? So the only reason you don't go on a raping spree is because God says it's bad. Got it.

No, seriously, what are you talking about? I have morality because I have a brain that understands the concept. Not because of some book. Not because of a science class.

Why do you need to externalize morality to some higher power, whether to God or to evolution? Take some responsibility for yourself.

I seriously hope you're a troll, because otherwise you're the worst kind of fundamentalist.

Do you believe in gravity? Are you "all for" gravity? Because that means you support people dying from falling.

Do you believe in water? Are you "all for" water? Because that means you support people drowning.

Do you believe in fire? Are you "all for" fire? Because that means you want people to burn to death.

You monster.

Your other thread has made me lose most of the patience and respect I had, but, let's just say this : you are mixing absolutely everything up, you have little-to-no understanding of the concepts you refer to, your posts are entirely full of implicit debateable assumptions you're hardly aware of, and which would take ages to point out one by one, and your exemples show massive ignorance patched by tabloid-level factoids out of the same blatantly anti-scientific sources. But, just this :

Evolution, and natural selection, is not an ideology. It is not a "value". Most of our efforts, in a society, are going "against it", because our society opposes the law of the jungle. Only some very creepy ideologues (some old eugenists, or some new neo-darwinian economists or "sociobiologists") build some sort of moral ideology around it.

Religion is normative, science is descriptive. Your confused posts miss the point because they don't make this distinction.

Sure. I'll bite. God says it's bad and therefore I won't rape. Take away civilization and all the modern day conveniences and I'm not sure what I'd be capable of and neither can you know for sure. It's easy to sit and say you'd never rape or murder. You've been tainted by this evil religion you speak of after all. Let's take away religion and see just how savage this world gets. Ever seen a zombie flick? When the shit hits the fan and life is like that again, you will rape, kill, and pillage to survive.