The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[seer]

As social animals we have evolved to act with mutual reciprocity, it's a natural survival mechanism of our species. And we spell out these natural instincts in the form of laws governing our community.

We also evolved to murder each other!

Humans: Unusually Murderous Mammals, Typically Murderous Primates
A new study looks at rates of lethal violence across a thousand species to better understand the evolutionary origins of humanity’s own inhumanity.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...imates/501935/

[Mountain Man]

Then you either don't understand atheism or don't know what it means to be rational.

Oh, and you didn't actually answer my question.

Sorry I didn't respond to your attempt at a "gotcha" the way you wanted. Now are you going to continue to whine about it or actually address my argument?

[seer]

Then you either don't understand atheism or don't know what it means to be rational.

Atheism has nothing to say on the subject ethics. So would it be rational to call one chimp killing another chimp evil? Why?

[Mountain Man]

As social animals we have evolved to act with mutual reciprocity, it's a natural survival mechanism of our species. And we spell out these natural instincts in the form of laws governing our community.

Still doesn't answer the question. You're stuck in the "is-ought" fallacy. Just because cooperation is advantageous does not prove that one ought to cooperate.

[Roy]

Try reading the essay. You might learn something.

I skimmed it and found it was completely irrelevant to the point you weren't defending.

[Mountain Man]

I skimmed it and found it was completely irrelevant to the point you weren't defending.

Chuck asked for the Christian perspective on morality. I gave him a link to an excellent essay by one of the top philosophers in the world today who is also a Christian. We're also discussing whether or not atheism can account for moral oughts, which is the topic of the essay in question. So tell me, in what way was this "completely irrelevant" to my point? Maybe if you had taken the time to actually read instead of "skimming" then you wouldn't make such ignorant remarks.

[Doug Shaver]

Sorry I didn't respond to your attempt at a "gotcha" the way you wanted. Now are you going to continue to whine about it or actually address my argument?

You said, "if atheism is true then good and evil are irrational concepts." I did address that.

[Doug Shaver]

So would it be rational to call one chimp killing another chimp evil? Why?

When the discussion is about whether some behavior is morally acceptable, I think the question "What about when chimpanzees do it?" is an attempt to change the subject.

[Tassman]

We also evolved to murder each other!

Which proves what, the essential depravity of man? Come now. Was the recent cave rescue in Buddhist Thailand an example of man's essential depravity? It was quite the reverse!

We mitigate our negative instincts by punishing anti-social behaviour and reinforce our positive instincts by promoting accepted social behaviour. This in order to enhance the cohesive society essential for our survival as a species.

[seer]

When the discussion is about whether some behavior is morally acceptable, I think the question "What about when chimpanzees do it?" is an attempt to change the subject.

Well no, if atheism is true what is left but biology? And like Chimps and other primates (our cousins) we are biologically determined to harm each other. We would not call one chimp killing another chimp evil, so why do we overlay that description on our behavior?

[seer]

Which proves what, the essential depravity of man? Come now. Was the recent cave rescue in Buddhist Thailand an example of man's essential depravity? It was quite the reverse!

We mitigate our negative instincts by punishing anti-social behaviour and reinforce our positive instincts by promoting accepted social behaviour. This in order to enhance the cohesive society essential for our survival as a species.

See you like certain instincts, but not others. And the strong killing the weak, and the strong passing on their genes would also be good for survival.

[shunyadragon]

See you like certain instincts, but not others. And the strong killing the weak, and the strong passing on their genes would also be good for survival.

It is not necessarily the strong that specifically survive to pass on their genes. It is the attributes that contribute to the survival of the species. Social cooperation and nurturing are attributes that contribute to the survival of the species. In fact the evolution of humans we are not as strong, our hearing is not as good, and our senses are not as good as many other animals, because evolution favored intellectual and social development.

[Mountain Man]

You said, "if atheism is true then good and evil are irrational concepts." I did address that.

Yes, you addressed it by attempting to trap me with a "gotcha" question and then cried about it when I neatly sidestepped your trap and cut your legs out from under you. Now stop playing these silly games and see if you can actually get beyond the first sentence of my argument.

[Charles]

Try reading the essay. You might learn something.

It seems you did not learn anything, or why are you so afraid to provide anything but argument by weblink?

[Mountain Man]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28814[/ATTACH]
Yip yip yip yip!