How can you tell Right from Wrong Evolutionists?

reply to post by riley


ok, so then tell us oh wise one. how did we ever come up with rules through the process of natural selection? the entire concept behind of evolution is "weed out the weak and the inferior".
what do you base your rules off of? majority opinion? majority opinion has been proven to be wrong, examples can be found in the bible and the history of science can also tell you that the majority can somtimes be wrong.
please refer to this thread, the post by babloyi demands an explanation that i doubt any evolutionist can provide.

To be more specific, it is a naturally occuring process in human beings. And because it is naturally occuring, we are born with what is necessary for that development.

this post was from earlier in the thread, i dont know which side they are on but this is exactly my point and if you refer to the link I provided above you will notice that it is natural the humans to do horrible things in order to benefit themselves.

so the question still remains, where does morality come from? if its not natural, then where does it come from?
[edit on 30-3-2008 by Methuselah]

[edit on 30-3-2008 by Methuselah]

Originally posted by Methuselah
reply to post by riley

 

ok, so then tell us oh wise one. how did we ever come up with rules through the process of natural selection? the entire concept behind of evolution is "weed out the weak and the inferior".

I'm glad you asked.
Superiority and strength are not always seeded in physical domination/aggression or selfishness.. quite the opposite in fact. A strength can be compassion.. even monkeys have social structures where the weakest are provided for by their 'superiors'. In regard to early humans.. why would a tribe member steal anothers food when they can just share it? Doing so might mean he'll return the favour when times get tough. Sharing and co-operation helps to ensure survival; it's called strength in numbers.

I am of the opinion that there is naturally 'moral' and 'immoral' people.. Violence is a very primitive instinct.. what happens when someone breaks the law? They get ejected from society and become alientated and have to fend for themselves. They lose that advantage of being part of a community.

If someone wants to indulge in more aggressive impluses.. belief in god won't stop them carrying them out. If it did history would not be so violent.

what do you base your rules off of?

My conscience.

You seem to have a fairly biggoted view of 'evolutionists'. Was this 'rule' taught to you..?

majority opinion? majority opinion has been proven to be wrong, examples can be found in the bible and the history of science can also tell you that the majority can somtimes be wrong.

I agree that the bible has not been a good moral guide. It certainly did not prevent the crusades or sexual abuse by clergy.

edited for clarity.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by riley]

Speaking from an, admittedly, little scientific knowledge, it's baffling to see how people on the other side of the fence like to paint the people who believe in the ToE as immoral and continually question as to how their morals came about.

Does not morality and ethics itself evolved throughout history? Was the world in total disarray before the Lord sent his Son to mankind some 2000 years ago so that we may know the right from the wrong? That would seem to negate all the other possibilities of how morality could come about.

Let's try to get to basics since we humans are a species too. It seems reasonable to say that by instinct alone, in order for a species to survive, they have to mate, nurture and ensure that their newborn matures, find food to ensure survival and mankind are no different if they want to survive. That is a naturally occuring process for survival which by itself can be defined as moral values in the world today. Nobody has to tell you that taking care and nurturing your children is a good moral value. You just know that that is a good thing without being told by any scripture.

If something that you know might cause harm to you or your kind, basic instinct would dictate that you have to fend off the threat or risk losing your kind or your next generation. We as a growing species find that we could survive better if we banded together thus forming tribes and as population grows, different civilizations as well as cultures independent of each other were born.

If evolution is correct how do you know right from wrong? If evolution is correct would it not be ok to rape and kill those weaker than you? Survival of the fittest and all. If evolution is correct is it not right for America to conquer the world militarily and do away with all that Bush or whomever feels is inferior and detrimental to the gene pool? This was Hitler's philosophy from the start,rid mankind of the "lower" or "less evolved" humans and give evolution a jumpstart. Tell me where he is wrong if evolution and survival of the fittest is the Law?

You sound as if to say that humans are dumb, have no self-awareness and needed to be told by some guiding force about what to do. If someone attempts to kill you or your loved ones, would you stand there and let them do it? You know that from your own conscience that the killer wants to rob you of your life. Similarly, if someone were to try and rape you or someone you have a connection to, your instinct won't be to just stand there and do nothing; you know that they are trying to enrage your modesty/privacy. So you have to read some scripture to come to the conclusion that it is wrong?

ok, you misunderstood my last statement. and assumed that crusades followed the bible to a T.
most people pick and chose which parts of the bible they want to follow.
most of the bible is to show us examples of where we went wrong when we didnt listen to God and what went right when we did. what happens when you keep your faith in God and what happens when you lack faith.
then you have the way of life also. how to life and follow Christ.

A strength can be compassion

and how does evolution explain this. compassion is not just in humans and modern apes. its in a lot of animals, not the just more intellectual ones (humans and apes).

oh and please refer to that post I linked and humor me.

Originally posted by Methuselah

A strength can be compassion

and how does evolution explain this.

If you are only going to select partial sentences to reply to while ignoring answers you're given don't bother replying at all. I already explained why it's a beneficial trait to pass on [evolution] yet you disregarded it..

compassion is not just in humans and modern apes. its in a lot of animals, not the just more intellectual ones (humans and apes).

Compassion is a trait all animals use to survive? ..really?

That was my point.. even 'lower form' animals can have morals without benefit of believing in a god.

oh and please refer to that post I linked and humor me.

I already answered it sufficiently.. sorry if you didn't understand it but I'm not going to jump to answer posts from other threads on your say so. You won't even address valid points on this thread yet you're stealing arguments from other threads. If I decide to elaborate I will answer that post directly. Seems like when people answer your questions you ignore them only to rephrase it yet again.

Edit to repeat:
People can be naturally moral or immoral. Religion has proven that it doesn't change someone's true nature.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by riley]

reply to post by Methuselah

this may by true, however, some people dont think like this. people who believe in evolution, natural selection and survival of the fittest think that they have to do whatever they can to get ahead. meaning they really dont care... following this logic leads to stealing and murder and whatnot.

Stuff and nonsense. I am an atheist and the friend of many other atheists. I have never met anyone who remotely resembles your caricature.

and I havent seen and original question answered.

Read my earlier post.

Also recommended:

Sociobiology by E.O. Wilson

The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley

...and the Appendixes to the revised edition of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, in one of which he uses game theory to demonstrate that a community consisting of vicious mutual predators (such as, according to you, people who believe in evolution) can no more survive over time than a society of saints; the winners of the survival game are 'grudgers', individuals whose motto in life is 'do unto others as they do unto you'.

The question has been answered innumerable times, but there are none so blind as they who will not see.

reply to post by RuneSpider

Stealing from a person would make that person angry, and probably cause a fight between the thief and the person who was robbed. Seriously, if you steal something from someone, you expect them to be ticked right? We are taught not to steal, because we don't want to be robbed either. (Rip what you sow, eh?) Murder? Look, kill someone hated it'll generally blow over fairly quickly. Kill someone loved or respected, all hell breaks loose. Then the family and friends of the victim take up arms against you and your own. Not a good situation to be in, right? Besides, like I said, we don't want to be killed either, so we would want others to not be inclined to kill.

Bingo. The incentive for morality is simple common sense (I'm hardly the first in this thread to point it out) and no further reinforcement is needed.

But telling that to people who secretly harbour fantasies of revenge -- of massacre, genocide, rape and cannibalism -- that are held in check only by the stern proscriptions of their God is a losing game. Perhaps the best excuse for religion is that -- most of the time -- it provides an effective sublimatory mechanism for these urges.

Unfortunately, it often fails, and when it does it usually has the opposite effect -- it encourages the believers to run amok. Then we have Inquisitions, religio-ethnic genocides and the oppression of marginalized groups, chiefly (for some reason) women. On a less serious and affective note, it also means decent people must also endure the animadversions of religious bigots on Above Top Secret.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by ignorant_ape

PS - the old testement promotes slavery and does not condem human sacrifice.

The New Testament, too, is pretty keen on slavery.

What the New Testament says about slavery

Some lame excuses offered here.

And some people think this book represents the highest moral standards of which humanity is capable. Faugh.

reply to post by Byrd


your responce to independent journal is interesting coming from an avowed pagan? which i think i once saw you call yourself.
you take the time to quote scriptures-----(jonah3:10/exodus32:14/genesis6:6/1samuel15:11/psalm106:45/hosea11:8/joel2:13)-----------as a rebuttal to malachi3:6 I Yahvah do not change;therefore you O sons of jacob ,are not consumed.

jonah tells G-D----- after nineveh was spared from destruction,because they listened to jonah and asked G-D for forgiveness for their wickedness and violence(jonah3)-----i knew that You are gracious/compassionate/slow to anger/abundant in loving kindness/and One that relents concerning calamity(jonah4:2)

therefore it makes logical sense that; the G-D that does not change was/is operating within the parameters that They have set for Themselves.

mercy is is one of the provisions of G-D's law that most humans have a hard time to comprehend;woe to you,scribes and pharisees,hypocrites !for you tithe mint and dill and cummin,and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law;Justice and Mercy and Faithfulness;but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

from your responce it's hard to believe you didn't know about G-D's mercy ?

Moral high ground time:

As a believer in evolution I am superior to the OP because I do not need a millenia old series of stories to tell me how to behave in a moral fashion!

Morality is a genetic trait developed due to evolutionary pressures on human groups; thus the natural state for our species is to be humane. Inhumanity is either a result of other survival pressures (e.g. starvation leading to cannabilism), a result of other genetic traits (protection of family groups), a mutation in genotype leading to a prediliction for anti-social behaviour (mental illness) or the result of a very poor upbringing (nature vs. nature).

Furthermore the bible is a very poor moral barometer featuring as it does genocide, murder, revenge and allowing the keeping of slaves amongst many other things. As an inspiration for a successful warrior tribe 4,000 years ago the bible was obviously rather effective, as a guide to morality it is generally lacking.

It must not have escaped the OP's notice that because the very vast majority of evolutionists are not baby eating, child beating, thieving rapists that the bible is not the only source of morality for our species - emphasised by a predeliction for morality amongst humans of all faiths.

reply to post by Astyanax


Many of the early Christians WERE slaves!
Jesus didn't die on the cross for Jew and gentiles alike to give us the world as a micro-heaven to 'perfect' it and reign over it, yet.
We have to grow where we're planted. Some are born well-off. Some, like Oprah Winfrey have to work at it. BTW, Oprah said her wealth came from her faithfulness to tithe to church.
Not a lame excuse at all!
some lame excuses

Primitive Christianity did not attack slavery directly; but it acted as though slavery did not exist. By inspiring the best of its children with this heroic charity, examples of which have been given above, it remotely prepared the way for the abolition of slavery. To reproach the Church of the first ages with not having condemned slavery in principle, and with having tolerated it in fact, is to blame it for not having let loose a frightful revolution, in which, perhaps, all civilization would have perished with Roman society. But to say, with Ciccotti (Il tramonto della schiavitù, Fr. tr., 1910, pp. 18, 20), that primitive Christianity had not even "an embryonic vision" of a society in which there should be no slavery, to say that the Fathers of the Church did not feel "the horror of slavery", is to display either strange ignorance or singular unfairness.

The O.P. does not go so far as to say that ALL evolutionists are baby-eating criminals, but, that, what is the bulwark AGAINST moral laxity?
WE have commandments FROM GOD.
Is Human LAW the higher authority for Darwinists?

[edit on 2-4-2008 by Clearskies]

Human instinct has to be the higher authority, the moral directions some relate to god are too out of date to be given any credence - were god really the source of morality he ought to have updated them by now. Human morals develop with a society (sometimes they regress) and as society has become more complex so the group idea of what is moral has changed. Religion provides moral guidance only insofar as morality had progressed at the time of the religion's founding. Hence the holy spirit inspiring genocide in the OT and authority being given to keep slaves in the NT.

Human instinct has to be the higher authority, the moral directions some relate to god are too out of date to be given any credence - were god really the source of morality he ought to have updated them by now. Human morals develop with a society (sometimes they regress) and as society has become more complex so the group idea of what is moral has changed. Religion provides moral guidance only insofar as morality had progressed at the time of the religion's founding. Hence the holy spirit inspiring genocide in the OT and authority being given to keep slaves in the NT.

Edited to add: Having accidentally posted a draft reply above, how on earth do I get rid of it?

[edit on 2/4/08 by Naboo the Enigma]

reply to post by theindependentjournal

If evolution is correct how do you know right from wrong? If evolution is correct would it not be ok to rape and kill those weaker than you? Survival of the fittest and all.

The term "survival of the fittest" comes from the British economist Herbert Spencer.Charles Darwin originally used the term "natural selection" before using Spencer's phrase.

H.Spencer,after reading Darwin's On the Origin of Species,wrote,

"This survival of the fittest,which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms,is that which Mr.Darwin has called 'natural selection',or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."

Principles of Biology of 1864,vol 1.


In the 5th addition of The Origin Of Species Darwin,writes,

"I have called this principle,by which each slight variation, if useful,is preserved,by the term natural selection,in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection.But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer,of the Survival of the Fittest,is more accurate,and is sometimes equally convenient....the word fittest primarily meaning,most suitable or most appropriate...."

It has long been believed that the above term means only the strongest will survive,and it is wrong.If you cannot adapt then you will not survive.Spencer knew this and Darwin knew this,but those who didn't understand and those who were against Darwin's theory applied it to social theories and thus the phrase took on a whole knew meaning.An incorrect meaning.


If you take the phrase in its proper context your theory falls.

It is true that the phrase "survival of the fittest",in and by itself,is a tautology if fitness is defined by survival and reproduction.However,natural selection is not just survival of the fittest.Natural selection is the portion of variation in reproductive success,that is caused by heritable characters.
If certain heritable characters increase or decrease the chances of survival and reproduction of their bearers,then it follows mechanically (by definition of "heritable") that those characters that improve survival and reproduction will increase in frequency over generations.This is precisely what is called "evolution by natural selection." On the other hand,if the characters which lead to differential reproductive success are not heritable,then no meaningful evolution will occur,"survival of the fittest" or not.

As for knowing right from wrong;if you only know what is good because of God & Jesus then how do you explain all the good people who have never heard of them? How do you explain all those good people who existed before the Christian faith emerged?






[edit on 2-4-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by Clearskies
Good, day, Mrs. Clearskies. My regards to Mr. Brightside.

Many of the early Christians WERE slaves!

Precisely. And what were Paul's instructions to them?

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

- Ephesians vi, 5-8

In a word, be a good slave. Accept your hideous and humiliating condition, eat suffering for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and wait for death (or for Christ's much-promised second coming) to receive your freedom and reward. Nice and moral, oh yes.

Primitive Christianity did not attack slavery directly; but it acted as though slavery did not exist.

This is a polite way of saying that early Christianity condoned slavery. Indeed, none of the great streams of the faith -- Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant -- and their leaders ever had the decency to make an official condemnation of slavery until quite recently. Indeed, the concepts of Christian faith and service are clearly modelled on the institution of slavery.

By inspiring the best of its children with this heroic charity...

Let us speak, rather, of heroic casuistry, such as is displayed in this sentence.

... it remotely prepared the way for the abolition of slavery.

So remotely, indeed, that no valid connection can be made between Christianity and any movement to abolish slavery. Indeed, America's Southern Baptist Convention only apologized for its support for slavery and racism in 1995!

To reproach the Church of the first ages with not having condemned slavery in principle, and with having tolerated it in fact, is to blame it for not having let loose a frightful revolution, in which, perhaps, all civilization would have perished with Roman society.

More casuistry, or -- if you prefer -- Jesuitry. Counterfactuals do not a historical argument make.

The O.P. does not go so far as to say that ALL evolutionists are baby-eating criminals, but, that, what is the bulwark AGAINST moral laxity?

You need a bulwark? You harbour fantasies of eating babies?

Originally posted by Astyanax

Good, day, Mrs. Clearskies. My regards to Mr. Brightside.

I don't get the reference.
Maybe, I'm too old for it?

Precisely. And what were Paul's instructions to them?

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

- Ephesians vi, 5-8

Yes, it also says be good to your boss, wives, husbands, children, slaves, parents, governmental leaders, and God.

In a word, be a good slave. Accept your hideous and humiliating condition, eat suffering for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and wait for death (or for Christ's much-promised second coming) to receive your freedom and reward. Nice and moral, oh yes.

Some roman slave owners WERE hideous! I suppose Nero was a stickler for perfection.....
On the same hand, some Christians and Jews were hard slavedrivers, but, we are called to overcome evil by doing good, not with a knife!
(You can draw more flies with honey than vinegar.)
I have seen MANY cold hearted individuals soften to friendliness through showing them love.

This is a polite way of saying that early Christianity condoned slavery. Indeed, none of the great streams of the faith -- Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant -- and their leaders ever had the decency to make an official condemnation of slavery until quite recently. Indeed, the concepts of Christian faith and service are clearly modelled on the institution of slavery.

Slavery was legal and short of a revolution, there was NO way to overturn it abruptly.
By liberating the minds of slave and nobility alike, you could mold society to a more democratic establishment WITHOUT violence.

it remotely prepared the way for the abolition of slavery.

So remotely, indeed, that no valid connection can be made between Christianity and any movement to abolish slavery. Indeed, America's Southern Baptist Convention only apologized for its support for slavery and racism in 1995!

Oh my!
I'm from the south. I have attended southern Baptist churches PRIOR to 1995, is that why they were preaching a new enslavement program for blacks?
Come on. NOONE, except the embittered poor or ignorant I know EVER were for slavery!
BTW,
Has England apologized for their role?


.

You need a bulwark? You harbour fantasies of eating babies?

I meant a deterrent for lawlessness.
People will use ignorance for adultery, fornication, drugs, crimes of passion,
child abuse, necromancy. ( ALL sorts of things!)






[edit on 3-4-2008 by Clearskies]

reply to post by Methuselah

the entire concept behind of evolution is "weed out the weak and the inferior".

No it isn't.

Businessmen and the like took over the theory of survival of the fittest and manipulated it to justify their own greed and lust for power and money.

If you actually read books by the people who invented these theories you will find the true answers.If you read material about certain types of socialism or works by those against evolution then the answers will surely be tainted,and in some cases,downright false!

The behaviour of both creationists and evolutionists alike on ATS is evidence that belief does not determine morality. Even the OP is based on a prejudiced [immoral] assumption.

[edit on 3-4-2008 by riley]

reply to post by riley


Well said Riley, and very understated.

IMO it is and always has been survival of the fittest. And I never understood why the two concepts couldn't both be right, or for that matter ... both be wrong?

Anyone with common sense and an open mind could argue for both points and be equally valid...

But then, that's the common denominator, an open mind. Instead of fighting over which "theory" and I say theory to placate both sides...just pluck what facts that you, yourself feel are "right" from all sides. Chances are, that is the right answer...to you...and what more is there?

[edit on 3-4-2008 by LateApexer313]

reply to post by Clearskies

Don't get the reference? Clearskies, Brightside... you sound like relatives. Good band, the Killers.

Anyway, you posted

I'm from the south. I have attended southern Baptist churches PRIOR to 1995, is that why they were preaching a new enslavement program for blacks?

No, but read the link I posted, and all will be made clear.

Come on. NOONE, except the embittered poor or ignorant I know EVER were for slavery!

You mean there are still people you know who actually admit to being for it? Good heavens.

Never is a long time. Were all those plantation owners and slavemasters and auctioneers and bounty hunters, all those Dahomey slavers and Middle Passage captains really against slavery after all? Were they in the game against their will? Forced by circumstances? Hungry mouths to feed? Unavoidable sacrifice required to keep the womenfolk in petticoats and bustles?

Dear lady, it is the poor, the embittered and the ignorant who constitute the vast majority of the human race. It's their ideas and attitudes that matter, not the opinions of intellectuals and philanthropists.

Has England apologized for (its) role?

In abolishing slavery, do you mean? Not that I know of, though I hear some of the less regenerate members of the British National Party are organizing a bus trip for members who wish to micturate on Wilberforce's grave.

[edit on 4-4-2008 by Astyanax]