Watchman wrote:
If, like nearly all modern Western atheists, most believe that the physical universe is all there is, then it is really hard to see where objective moral laws could come from. What arrangement of matter, energy, and space-time could give rise to a moral obligation?
How about evolution? Genetics? Survival?
It’s not that hard to imagine it. In nature, survival is the key. Animals who can adapt are able to survive and pass down their traits and the ones who are weak die off and their traits disappear. Humans are very social animals. Imagine when humans have first risen, and a group of humans have just killed a mammoth and are splitting the food. Now, one of the humans could easily kill the other and steal their share of meat. However, do you think it would be more likely to survive in the long run by killing everyone and stealing the meat, or by continuing to help eachother out for future hunts?
evolution has nothing to do with morality, its a scientific theory explaining how organisms change over time be natural selection.....
adaption of humans as social animals..... using your arguement...Have we not come to the point that we know that if we share the “meat” and the “fire”, it will benefit all.If that is that is the case, why are there still the same “evils”. Why have we not learned that as “social animals” ON A GLOBAL SCALE, poverty, crime, starvation, disease, murder, rape, war, we can eradicate a lot of evil...Also among animals are there not displays of brutal savagery, sometimes cannibalistic, because of instinct.... but we express this because of choice...why is that?
I am wondering how can an atheist call anything good or evil on the basis of a worldview that excludes absolute standards?
Watchman wrote:
If, like nearly all modern Western atheists, most believe that the physical universe is all there is, then it is really hard to see where objective moral laws could come from. What arrangement of matter, energy, and space-time could give rise to a moral obligation?
How about evolution? Genetics? Survival?
It’s not that hard to imagine it. In nature, survival is the key. Animals who can adapt are able to survive and pass down their traits and the ones who are weak die off and their traits disappear. Humans are very social animals. Imagine when humans have first risen, and a group of humans have just killed a mammoth and are splitting the food. Now, one of the humans could easily kill the other and steal their share of meat. However, do you think it would be more likely to survive in the long run by killing everyone and stealing the meat, or by continuing to help eachother out for future hunts?
evolution has nothing to do with morality, its a scientific theory explaining how organisms change over time be natural selection.....
adaption of humans as social animals..... using your arguement...Have we not come to the point that we know that if we share the “meat” and the “fire”, it will benefit all.If that is that is the case, why are there still the same “evils”. Why have we not learned that as “social animals” ON A GLOBAL SCALE, poverty, crime, starvation, disease, murder, rape, war, we can eradicate a lot of evil...Also among animals are there not displays of brutal savagery, sometimes cannibalistic, because of instinct.... but we express this because of choice...why is that?
I am wondering how can an atheist call anything good or evil on the basis of a worldview that excludes absolute standards?
Actually, evolution DOES have to do with morality. Believe it or not our morality is encoded into our DNA. And being encoded into our DNA, humans with better morals have survived because they help eachother survive (“you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” while humans with poorer moral values ended up alone and unable to hunt by themselves or killed by groups of humans defending themselves. The “social” gene is passed down while the “alone” gene became less likely to be passed down, but that isn’t to say that gene completely died out. If you are about to kill someone and you hesitate, that’s your morals speaking. The ones that are saying, “this won’t help you survive”, although in some cases it may be required. If you look at the way culture has evolved over thousands of years, you will notice that our morality has evolved too to adapt.
Watchman wrote:
If, like nearly all modern Western atheists, most believe that the physical universe is all there is, then it is really hard to see where objective moral laws could come from. What arrangement of matter, energy, and space-time could give rise to a moral obligation?
How about evolution? Genetics? Survival?
It’s not that hard to imagine it. In nature, survival is the key. Animals who can adapt are able to survive and pass down their traits and the ones who are weak die off and their traits disappear. Humans are very social animals. Imagine when humans have first risen, and a group of humans have just killed a mammoth and are splitting the food. Now, one of the humans could easily kill the other and steal their share of meat. However, do you think it would be more likely to survive in the long run by killing everyone and stealing the meat, or by continuing to help eachother out for future hunts?
evolution has nothing to do with morality, its a scientific theory explaining how organisms change over time be natural selection.....
adaption of humans as social animals..... using your arguement...Have we not come to the point that we know that if we share the “meat” and the “fire”, it will benefit all.If that is that is the case, why are there still the same “evils”. Why have we not learned that as “social animals” ON A GLOBAL SCALE, poverty, crime, starvation, disease, murder, rape, war, we can eradicate a lot of evil...Also among animals are there not displays of brutal savagery, sometimes cannibalistic, because of instinct.... but we express this because of choice...why is that?
I am wondering how can an atheist call anything good or evil on the basis of a worldview that excludes absolute standards?
Actually, evolution DOES have to do with morality. Believe it or not our morality is encoded into our DNA. And being encoded into our DNA, humans with better morals have survived because they help eachother survive (“you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” while humans with poorer moral values ended up alone and unable to hunt by themselves or killed by groups of humans defending themselves. The “social” gene is passed down while the “alone” gene became less likely to be passed down, but that isn’t to say that gene completely died out. If you are about to kill someone and you hesitate, that’s your morals speaking. The ones that are saying, “this won’t help you survive”, although in some cases it may be required. If you look at the way culture has evolved over thousands of years, you will notice that our morality has evolved too to adapt.
That sort of behaviour is conducive to the survival, welfare and reproduction of those who engage in it......However, this is only the lowest level of morality...... perhaps it isn’t morality at all but enlightened self-interest.
Watchman wrote:
If, like nearly all modern Western atheists, most believe that the physical universe is all there is, then it is really hard to see where objective moral laws could come from. What arrangement of matter, energy, and space-time could give rise to a moral obligation?
How about evolution? Genetics? Survival?
It’s not that hard to imagine it. In nature, survival is the key. Animals who can adapt are able to survive and pass down their traits and the ones who are weak die off and their traits disappear. Humans are very social animals. Imagine when humans have first risen, and a group of humans have just killed a mammoth and are splitting the food. Now, one of the humans could easily kill the other and steal their share of meat. However, do you think it would be more likely to survive in the long run by killing everyone and stealing the meat, or by continuing to help eachother out for future hunts?
evolution has nothing to do with morality, its a scientific theory explaining how organisms change over time be natural selection.....
adaption of humans as social animals..... using your arguement...Have we not come to the point that we know that if we share the “meat” and the “fire”, it will benefit all.If that is that is the case, why are there still the same “evils”. Why have we not learned that as “social animals” ON A GLOBAL SCALE, poverty, crime, starvation, disease, murder, rape, war, we can eradicate a lot of evil...Also among animals are there not displays of brutal savagery, sometimes cannibalistic, because of instinct.... but we express this because of choice...why is that?
I am wondering how can an atheist call anything good or evil on the basis of a worldview that excludes absolute standards?
Actually, evolution DOES have to do with morality. Believe it or not our morality is encoded into our DNA. And being encoded into our DNA, humans with better morals have survived because they help eachother survive (“you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” while humans with poorer moral values ended up alone and unable to hunt by themselves or killed by groups of humans defending themselves. The “social” gene is passed down while the “alone” gene became less likely to be passed down, but that isn’t to say that gene completely died out. If you are about to kill someone and you hesitate, that’s your morals speaking. The ones that are saying, “this won’t help you survive”, although in some cases it may be required. If you look at the way culture has evolved over thousands of years, you will notice that our morality has evolved too to adapt.
That sort of behaviour is conducive to the survival, welfare and reproduction of those who engage in it......However, this is only the lowest level of morality...... perhaps it isn’t morality at all but enlightened self-interest.
Winner.
Humans are naturally selfish creatures. Everything we do is to do something for our own interests. Cooperating with one another is a way to survive and protect each other from other animals. Another example is somebody doing some Church work. This is natural in our minds cause we think it gives us a better chance to get into “heaven."
(“I scratch your back, you scratch mine”, but riddle me this....what about things/words/acts done by humans that are not likely to be returned by the recipient......
and i dont think there are no non-human animal models for human pride, shame, and guilt. Humans only, know the difference between moral right and wrong. Not even the cleverest ape could be conditioned to be angry upon seeing one animal steal food from another.
sides which, which what about kindness to animals? or is that a particular gene code too....
What makes you so sure of that? Animals have morals t just like us, and they have consciousness... just like us. What makes you think they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between whats right and wrong?
Evil is whatever you want it to be. Technically evil has never been defined by anything concrete. Good and evil are simply perceptions, but not necessarily a reality.
Zucas wrote:
Evil is whatever you want it to be. Technically evil has never been defined by anything concrete. Good and evil are simply perceptions, but not necessarily a reality.
hmmm.....Perception may be relative, but the differences in perception have to do with your personal experiences in life..... It is, after all, the nature of perception to divide experience into polarities.... As finite creatures, we exist in a relative world where everything is inevitably better or worse, according to our particular point of view....
»
Religion
» what is "Evil"
while humans with poorer moral values ended up alone and unable to hunt by themselves or killed by groups of humans defending themselves. The “social” gene is passed down while the “alone” gene became less likely to be passed down, but that isn’t to say that gene completely died out. If you are about to kill someone and you hesitate, that’s your morals speaking. The ones that are saying, “this won’t help you survive”, although in some cases it may be required. If you look at the way culture has evolved over thousands of years, you will notice that our morality has evolved too to adapt.
