I do not know you, Isabella. I cannot comment on your morals. I only know your view regarding abortion. And by now you know my opinion on that matter. I do believe you are a good person. I also know that you, just like me, are not without sin. The big deferens is where we thing our morals are coming from. Mine is coming from God where yours is from man and nature. God never change. Nature and man change. So will your morals. Except for abortions I believe that atheist and Christians have very similar morals, for now.
Given the distinction between evolution as a biological theory (which I believe in) and the misrepresentation of evolution as a social theory (which I have made it clear that I do not believe in), how exactly do you think evolution has affected my morals? This isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t a rhetorical question; I would really like to hear your answer.
Looking at evolution. Then everything living is a product of evolution. And everything that living things do is product of evolution.
If youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re suggesting that morals are the product of evolution in the sense that human behaviour is genetically determined, I would agree with you to some extent. However based on what youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve been saying, it seems to me that youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re less concerned with the evolutionary process and more concerned with social Darwinism.
I think morals are a combination of learned social behaviours and genetically determined social behaviours.
Over time, yes. I think this is true for both Christians and atheists alike. The Bible says that the proper punishment for adultery is death by stoning. Do Christians still believe that this is a morally acceptable punishment? Since the time that the Old Testament was written, many religions have formed and all have diverse moral views.
It is difficult to comment on this phrase. Ã¢â‚¬Å“The Bible says that the proper punishment for adultery is death by stoningÃ¢â‚¬Â Please if you can. Give me the book and verse where it is written. So often people take bits out of context. Did God instructed this or did man?
You have to understand the deferens between GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s law (morals) and punishment when breaking this law. The law (Morals) never changed punishment have. Adultery is still morally wrong. This is why Jesus had to die on the cross. Even after all this earthly punishments we still committed the sins. This is why Jesus had to be sacrifice for our sins.
Like I said the big deferens is where we thing our morals are coming from.
Everyone still follows the basic rules: donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t murder, donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t steal, respect your parents, etc. but I think itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fair to say that these values are so widespread they can hardly be considered purely religious in nature. Atheists follow those rules too, after all.
Consider this. (I do know you do not believe in this) Adam and Eve walked with God in the Garden of Eden. They knew God existed. They have eaten from the tree of good and evil. They knew sin. (The birth of morals). If they where the mother and father of all humans, maybe this is why all humans have the basics rules.
Just to be clear, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think morals are subject to change dramatically within oneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s lifetime. Just because IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m an atheist, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not going to wake up one day and randomly decide that murder is ok.
Randomly no. Your environment may change for the worst. So will your morals.
Evolution suggests we are all animals.
Killing is killing, regardless of whoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s doing it or why. Again this comes down to semantics, but I think the word murder implies killing another person with a malicious intent. Only the latter two fit that definition (although I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t really make any assumptions about the intent of a human 100,000 years ago).
Person = human = animal.
Animal killing animal with a malicious intent = Murder?
If morality is subjected to change that mean killing a human for food 100 000 year ago may not have been murder. Then murder was morally right. What then of rape and theft.
If murder was never morally right. (Human killing human) Then where did morals come from in the first place? God?
In this case, if the stronger lion was better able to survive and reproduce then I suppose this would be survival of the fittest. Physical strength can sometimes be a factor in reproductive success. However I hope youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re not trying to draw a parallel between lion social dynamics and that of humans. If a human killed another to gain political power, this is unlikely to impact their own survival or the number of children they will produce. This would not be an example of fitness.
Do you know of Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe? The one with the most power make the rules. The fittest survive. The strongest Lion rules the pride, for better or for worst. This is evolution, nature. Evolution is a natural process.
Nature has no morals, no write or wrong, only survival. Humans are animals. Animals are part of nature. Nature evolves. Animal instincts evolve for the animal to survive. Human morality will be adjusted as the environment change. Politics have everything to do with survival.