First and definitely FOREMOST, Evolution does NOT have to account for morality. Because evolution IS ONLY ONE THING you moron:
The study of allele frequency changes across successive generations amongst a population.
— By Frank Turek
Some atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, insist that morality is simply the product of evolution. Common moral sensibilities (Don’t murder, rape, steal, etc.) help ensure our evolutionary survival. There are number of problems with this view:
As I mentioned in a blog post (Atheists Have No Basis for Morality), several atheists at a recent I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist event at UNC Wilmington struggled greatly when I asked them to offer some objective basis for morality from their atheistic worldview. They kept trying to give tests for how we know something is moral rather than why some thing is moral. One atheist said “not harming people” is the standard. But why is harming people wrong if there is no God-Thing? And what if harming people enhances your survival and that of most others?
Another said, “happiness” is the basis for morality. After I asked him, “Happiness according to who, Mother Teresa or Hitler?,” he said, “I need to think about this more,” and then sat down. This says nothing about the intelligence of these people– there just is no good answer to the question. Without God there is no basis for objective morals. It’s just Mother Teresa’s opinion against Hitler’s.
Some atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, insist that morality is simply the product of evolution. Common moral sensibilities (Don’t murder, rape, steal, etc.) help ensure our evolutionary survival. There are number of problems with this view:
If what you say Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens said about morality and evolution is true, which I suspect you perverted and twisted what was actually said, they are partially correct. Mores are entirely subjective and relative to each individual person. Mores are also a learned “societal” behaviour trait. Murder, rape, theft are not very conducive for survival of the tribe. We learned these behaviour traits as we evolved over a million years as a “social” animal. It was not until a written language was invented that these learned behaviour traits from being a social animal were actually “codified”. The Laws of Hammurabi are the oldest codification of laws. Quite brutal. Thus, in a way, you can say evolution had a hand in morality. Those that refused to live within the tribal taboos, rules, laws were ostracized. Those law-breakers had a harder time procreating when the whole tribe shunned them. However, such still survives within the human species because we still have The Animal Side of our brain. Also see “Brain Problems”. If we allowed natural selection to have its way without manipulation or eugenics program, it is the prefrontal cortex, The Human Side, that will continue to enlarge while The Animal Side will shrink. I at least hope so… It was the much larger prefrontal cortex of the Sapiens that gave Sapiens the edge to out-compete and extinct the Neanders.
And y’awl wonder why I say the Religitards are the sickest, most perverted, and psychologically twisted of us humans. The Number One item is about rapine? What the 7734 is wrong with you Religitards and this ideation and fixation with rape? Is this why one must be a Religitard to be a rapist? A child molester? Frank, you are mentally sick. You need psychiatric help. As do ALL Religitards.
And I ain’t bothering to answer the others. Item Number One is enough to make the others moot.
As I mentioned in a blog post (Atheists Have No Basis for Morality), several atheists at a recent I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist event at UNC Wilmington struggled greatly when I asked them to offer some objective basis for morality from their atheistic worldview. They kept trying to give tests for how we know something is moral rather than why some thing is moral. One atheist said “not harming people” is the standard. But why is harming people wrong if there is no God-Thing? And what if harming people enhances your survival and that of most others?
“Atheists Have No Basis for Morality”, you say. Completely false. Everyone has what I call the Three of Me: Me, Myself, and I. Anybody whom says differently is a liar whom is totally mad and lost. I base my mores mostly on the concept us humans discovered probably 100 to 200 thousand years ago: I do not do to others what I do not want done to me. Except in self-defense. The Golden Rule thing you Religitards say first appears in your bible-thingies. At this time, this was another learned behaviour from ““societal” pressures”. Evolutionary dumb arse. Probably from 100Ka ago. Most persons do not want bad things done to them. Thus, they try their best not to do bad things to others. This is a learned behaviour, not an absolute more. And Steven Weinberg summed it up perfectly while he was at Project Manhatten (paraphrased): “Religion is an insult to the human intellect. With or without religion and a god, you will have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. But to get a good person to do evil, that takes religion.” And since you Religitards have NEVER brought forth any OHEFE, by default that God-Thing DOES NOT EXIST.
But why is harming people wrong if there is no God? And what if harming people enhances your survival and that of most others?
These two questions are entirely moot. As Steven Weinberg said, there is no need for a God-Thing when us humans have The Animal Side and The Human Side, the good and the bad. We do not need some invisible ghost telling us about morality. We learned such from being a social animal. “Societal Pressures”. When many agree… Not some schizophrenic delusion. With my Moral Code, doing or causing harm to others is a bad thing. HOWEVER: Question: Can I prevent even myself from causing harm to ALL others? And I derive this by unanimous vote from the Three of Me. All 3 are in agreement. However, as with all things, bad things still occur whether by my unintentional fault, or not. There are some things even that God-Thing cannot prevent. All IT can do is sit-back and watch. Fucker must be bored…
Finally, and most important, there are no objective mores. You are confusing “widely accepted” with “objective”. Every person decides on their own Moral Code. When many agree, thus come our laws. What you think of as “objective” mores is actually the larger majority agreeing on a more. Basically it is the “pactum vulgus”, not objectivity.
Another said, “happiness” is the basis for morality. After I asked him, “Happiness according to who, Mother Teresa or Hitler?,” he said, “I need to think about this more,” and then sat down. This says nothing about the intelligence of these people– there just is no good answer to the question. Without my God-Thing there is no basis for objective morals. It’s just Mother Teresa’s opinion against Hitler’s.
As for mother teresa, I would rather trust Hitler. They both did the same thing. And you can imagine the truth: “there is no basis for objective morals”. As said with religion, paraphrasing Christopher Hitchens, it poisons everything. It also creates the worstest cases of OCD ever recorded. Also see “Using the DSM-V”. As for mother teresa, she was an absolute monster. All she did was gather the dying people together into septic tanks. Instead of being hospice centers, mother teresa built squalor pits. When it comes to my Moral Code, my happiness has nothing to do with deciding my codes of morality. I could be the saddest person alive, yet I would still adhere to my Moral Code. Thus, happiness has nothing to do with MY morality. MY happiness relies on this: Have I followed My Moral Code? Yes. Have I attempted anything to better Humanity? Yes. This WWW site. I am attempting to show from a “vulgar lingus”, the Common Tongue. Franca lingua. AND, it WAS Religion that gave the negative connotations for the word vulgar. Original meaning was “common”.
The usage of double-negatives is timeless. When was the very first person to kind of use the signal of shaking the head (NO!) and flicking hand across neck (NO!)? Would this not constitute a double-negative utilizing EMPHASIS? So… Why are double-negatives ONLY disallowed in ONLY northeastern-based American English? The Catholic English? The traditional, Is it NOT an emphasis “tool”?
Frank Turek is just as mentally retarded, unknowledgeable, unintelligent, and downright stupid as Matt Slick, Ken Ham, William Lane Craig, Stephen Meyers, Kenneth Copeland, Michael Behe, William Dempski, et cetera, et alia. I could list a million of you. If you cannot read his Horse Hoowhee, Bullshit, and Brain Diarrhea and see it for the hoodoo voodoo and woo woo superstistion that it is, then get back to school and learn before you become like them. As I have said, Religitards are specifically trained how to LIE beLIEvably.
Psychological Terrorism, Emotional Molestation, Mental Rape, Empathic Predation, Beguiling Semantics, Prestidigitative Dialect, Evidentiary Perversion, Factual Twisting, … What else can I think of to call the tactics of the Religitards? Religitards cannot use science to back their claims, because all of their claims is nothing more than supernaturalism. Which all OHEFE proves does not exist. Religitards must use made-up fantasies with just enough truth to make their Horse Hoowhee, Bullshit, and Brain Diarrhea seem true. And note the operant word: SEEM.
Ultimately, it IS religion that is humanity’s worstest and greatest enemy.
— The Unknown Atheist
Copyright © 2024 by RMFR. Licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 International. All Other Rights Reserved