Or one can also say if there is no justice beyond this life and people who murder little children need not worry about acountabilty.

Or one one can say that because something like murdering little children is inarguably bad irrespective of God, humans can identify evil and hold people accountable for it. Whether or not God exists doesn't have much effect on morality. And, more to the point, whether or not it is preferable for him to eternally punish someone has no effect on whether he exists enough to be able to do so.

I disagree. With everything.

But mostly Crux.

I am an atheist and quite moral. There are very-easy-to understand reasons why human animals, just like many others, have an inherent sense of morality. Most of it can be boiled down to this: If you kill anything and everything, it decreases your own species' chance for survival. One does not need a god, a religion or a holy text to derive morality. It is in our nature to follow the golden rule, if only for our own survival (which is a pretty good reason).

I think that I have covered this, ad nauseam, but Atheists tend to be MORE moral than theists. One merely needs to look at the percentage of atheists in prison as a quick and easy proof. I know I've covered this before, and I know that it still hasn't been refuted with anything but hyperbole or strawman arguments.

Feel free to listen to this discussion with Peter Singer. He is an atheist and extremely moral. More moral than me, for certain.




Morality is not the exclusive purview of theists; especially when the god you pray to is a misogynist, murdering, lying rapist. But that's according to your book, not mine.

Implications of Evolution in Morality/Culture

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/implications.html#purpose

That is a jumble of 80% fact, 10% quotes out-of-context, and 10% religious statements with no factual basis.

The main conclusions of that article are:

1. Evolution reduces the value of human life to be equal to that of animal life. - Humans are an animal. It's not so much about lowering the value of human life as raising the value of animal life. The only people that have a problem with this statement are those that are looking to exploit animals for their own selfish purposes (and subsequently looking for a way to justify it)

2. Evolution reduces the value of human purpose to the passing on of one's genes. - This IS the primary purpose of human life (or any for that matter), but it isn't the ONLY purpose we have. The only people that have a problem with this statement are those that are wildly insecure.

3. Evolution replaces the value of moral behavior with the concept of survival of the fittest. It says that moral (and immoral) behavior is an evolutionarily selected trait that improves the survivability of the species. - It doesn't REPLACE moral behavior, it EXPLAINS it.

Here's the reality: IF Morality only originated with religion - what did humans do in the tens of thousands of years before religion? If they did nothing but kill each other, none of us would be here having this conversation. Everyone would be dead in a nihilistic hellstorm. Guess what? That didn't happen. Sure they killed eachother, but no more or less than they did After religions started forming.

If you look at human history, from about 30k years ago to today, we've pretty much killed eachother on a regular basis for awhile, but not to any degree that has threatened our overall survival. There was no sudden decrease in murder with the advent of religion. In fact, if you look at the global population, it's only really taken off in the last 200 or so years. It's had only marginal growth for most of human history (before And after religion). The sudden growth is largely due to non-religious factors: improved farming techniques, vaccinations, making of potable water, antibiotics and other SCIENTIFIC contributions to humanity.

So what has religion even DONE that could be construed as moral? Gods aren't curing diseases. Gods aren't feeding starving children. Gods aren't digging wells or creating better pesticides.

You show me a person who Jesus has personally clothed and I'll post here that I was wrong. But since Jesus is just as real as Thor or Ra, I don't see that happening.

Evolutionary morality is a topic very well explored, and there are plenty of books out there that explain the subject thoroughly. I suggest you feel free to seek out those resources. I'm pretty sure the topic is already pretty much laid to rest. The only people that tend to disagree are those that would anyways - that is, people who disagree because it conflicts with either their upbringing or self-conceived notions.

St. Thomas Aquinas himself identified rational human nature as the source for morality, and not religion. Consider that for a few minutes.

Well said, DLH. On the topic of killing and atheists being more moral than theists, I also want to add that religion is actually just an extra reason for people to kill. It's much more likely that someone will kill "in the name of God" than for someone to kill because they think there's no God to punish them for it.

Evolution is an amoral process which champions the survival of the fittest...it is the law of the jungle..the species is valued over the individual the strong replace the weak and those who are weak, sick or old..are simply disregarded.

Where does evolution show evidence for compassion for the physically weak or mentally ill in the animal kingdom or the human community?





You bet i would have a problem with natural selection in regards to the evolutionary process..it reduces the value of individuals who would be considered genetic dead ends.. consider the statements of Francis Galton:



and this...



What is the prime function of natural selection in evolution DHL? Survival of the fittest right? That is the whole point of the evolutionary process..genetic mutation and natural modification over millions of years..ultimately lead sucessful species up the evolutionary ladder of life.. The strong replace the weak which in the long run has the greatest chance for a particular species's survival in the long run..but what about those who do not measure up in the gene pool?




There is no evidence of morality being connected to the evolutionary process..the process itself is an ammoral one..there is no good or evil in Natural selection.



Spirituality has existed in humanity since humans have been on the earth long before any organized religion as we know today existed..there is evidence that Neanderthals believed in a afterlife and evidence of burial rituals have been discovered..the point is only humans have shown to have a hunger to know what thier purpose is.where did we come from and where we are going when we die..there is no evidence that any other species to have the capacity to ponder spiritual matters.



Not until the development of nuclear weapons in the last several decades that is...now we have the ability to wipe ourselves out of existence...along with pretty much most of life n this planet...particularly higher lifeforms..multiple times over.




That is true..in developed countries like the western world...the average lifespan has increased along with improvment of medical advances and labour saving devices...but science and technological advances has not solved the problem of less noble human traits such as selfishness and greed..particularly in bridging the gap between developed countries and third world countries... moreover one might argue that technological advances while having solved a lot of problems it has also led to new problems.



You're missing the real purpose of true religion in its purest form not as men have interpreted religion to be for for the Lord saith..they draw near to me with thier lips but are far from me in thier hearts....for Jesus declared "Love one another do good unto others even they who depise you" it is not about God solving the world's ills for us..it is about changing the attitudes of individuals to become better individuals...from selfishness to selflessness...that we may help and benefit one another in times of need..

You say you don't see God in action in times of need? Well the fact is in times of great need like natural disasters..when you see nieghbours who have barely talk to one another hitherto... helping one another and getting to know one another...you see also see church run organizations such as Helping Hands.. along with the Red Cross, the UN..distributing food, clean drinking water, clothing,medical supplies and temporary shelters..that is when you see God in action DHL..through people helping those in need..regardless thier religious/non-religious or political affiliation.



Human nature is a double edged sword...in each of us there is the Natural Man and the Spiritual Man..and the Natural Man by its nature is rebelious, prideful and self centered and thus is an enemy to God.

That is why the world's ills continue to remain to this day.

Hatred will simply not go away if we ban religion all together..that is a very simplistic argument being made by non-theists and humanists..you need to understand human nature and the dual nature within all human being the Natural Man/Spiritual Man..the Natural Man...which is prideful and self-centered...that is why the world's ills still exist wars will continue to rage on humans will continue to hate and kill one another..they will just find other excuses in the place of religion to do evil to one another.

Just off the top of my head:
Ended slavery

Gave the idea of proportionality in the justice system, so that people wouldn't seek bloody vigilante vengeance for every offense

Commanded us to take care the most vulnerable and needy people

Gave us publicly funded education

Gave us the hospital

Sent missionaries out into the world where they worked to end cannibalism, build schools, brought food to the starving, brought medicine to the sick, and helped disaster victims rebuild their homes, and many of them did those things on their own dime

Oh I agree, and I didn't say anything about banning religion. But if it didn't exist, it would be one less reason, however irrelevant the difference might be given that we'll always be killing each other anyway. But it would be one less thing to divide us as humans; many wars were started because of religious differences. Other reasons, too, I'm not going to pretend religion is the only cause, but it's a big one. And I certainly think religion causes more wars than it prevents. Rather than say "God thinks we shouldn't fight," the world leaders always say "We're going to do God's work and destroy our enemy", which is completely self-aggrandizing and self-centered. It's always an excuse to fight rather than an excuse not to fight, but Christianity itself "permits" that because of the misinterpretation of "an eye for an eye". Personally I think that was just referring to equality and fairness, not vengeance.


Is the act of evolution itself not compassion for the weak? This clip from Futurama is a perfect example:



See how the creature who gets killed evolves to become the killer in the next iteration? I understand your point, but it's an "ends justify the means" kind of scenario. The weaker individuals may die off if not chosen for evolution, but a weaker species, as a whole, becomes stronger because of it, ensuring it will not become extinct. That is compassion for the weak, and it's not like it's murder for someone who is ill equipped to die a natural death.