Athiests & Firm Believers In Evolution....Come Hither

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

So why are we even arguing that morals somewhat originate from religion

We aren't. O/P is.

So now you know better than myself what I'm saying (by omission)

Yes, you're prejudiced against all religious people due to the actions/behavior of a small percentage.​

 

[zerozero]

Okay what does evolution have to do with the question in the OP? Evolution describes what happened it doesn't tell us how to behave

 

[Dirty_Jerz]

who says we are the only animals capable of these things?

and my question was if these things existed before religion, not "before us"

i actually read that wrong my mistake

but as far as before religion when has there been a time before religion as far as humans as we know them today have been around? and we are as far as we know it the only animals capable of this type of reasoning ability as far as wants vs needs and picking wants even if they arent beneficial

why does my dog not attack me? does he have "morals"?

your dog wont bite the hand that feeds him obviously less to do with morals and more to do with surviving as usual

Evolution is happening. G-d is the entire Universe.

There is no "believe in". It's either true or not.

Morality is mathematic: the best outcome for the most people.

pretty interesting take on it friend

its either true or not is very bold

so basically if it doesnt add up its non logical? or not common sense as some have said here as to the origins of morals

I'm not an atheist but I will play along

My morals come from my desire to sustain and improve the human race, my genetics to be exact. I hold these idologies because in human society certain things improve us and move us forward and other things don't. Self preservation of a species is deeply rooted in the psyche of all living beings.

In the grand scheme of things these morals ensure my survival and the survival of my genes, and ultimately the human race. Plenty of animals show traits in which we deem "morals" most of the ideas we consider human morals possess evolutionary advantages.

pretty good response friend but you can have morals that dont sustain anything but things for self and they according to this logic it must also be genetic? so im guessing some people are genetically disposed to preserve their kind and some only themselves

self preservation seems more instictual then doesnt it? since it is something all species have in common an again has less to do with want and definantly all to do with need

alot of morals do have advantages to live on in "evolution" but there are plenty that hold no weight at all and infact could be a cancer on the community so i think its fair to say that those are indeed actions that have alot less to do with morality and have far more to do with instinct

 

[Dirty_Jerz]

We aren't. O/P is.
​

am not

 

[Dirty_Jerz]

Okay what does evolution have to do with the question in the OP? Evolution describes what happened it doesn't tell us how to behave

well friend in order to figure out this un-solved mystery we have to put all variables into play including evolution because hey lets face it evolution is suppose to determine everything that has to do with living beings and that should just as well include our thoughts as living beings

 

[MeachTheMonster]

i actually read that wrong my mistake

but as far as before religion when has there been a time before religion as far as humans as we know them today have been around? and we are as far as we know it the only animals capable of this type of reasoning ability as far as wants vs needs and picking wants even if they arent beneficial





your dog wont bite the hand that feeds him obviously less to do with morals and more to do with surviving as usual







pretty interesting take on it friend

its either true or not is very bold

so basically if it doesnt add up its non logical? or not common sense as some have said here as to the origins of morals




pretty good response friend but you can have morals that dont sustain anything but things for self and they according to this logic it must also be genetic? so im guessing some people are genetically disposed to preserve their kind and some only themselves

self preservation seems more instictual then doesnt it? since it is something all species have in common an again has less to do with want and definantly all to do with need

alot of morals do have advantages to live on in "evolution" but there are plenty that hold no weight at all and infact could be a cancer on the community so i think its fair to say that those are indeed actions that have alot less to do with morality and have far more to do with instinct

Sometimes self preservation is more important and sometimes preservation of the whole is more important. Those who always put preservation of self first are called sociopaths. This condition is considered a genetic defect because it is counterproductive to our species.

What morals do you think are cancer to the society?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

am not

My bad. Carry on.​

 

[Dirty_Jerz]

Sometimes self preservation is more important and sometimes preservation of the whole is more important. Those who always put preservation of self first are called sociopaths. This condition is considered a genetic defect because it is counterproductive to our species.

What morals do you think are cancer to the society?

interesting but i would say that preservation of self is also preservation of whole because you and i are apart of one in the same but maybe not depending on beliefs

maybe those who preserve strictly self first have gone through things in their life that make them more inclined to act in that sort of way but they previously were not? a very likely situation to occur and would that rule out the possibility that they are not built that way genetically or would that not actually matter because either way they still have a choice in deciding which moral code to follow


as far as cancerous morals there are plenty of people who do things by their own code like "yea man ill only take these 2 drinks i gotta drive home tonight but ill be able to drive as long as i dont get t00 buzzed laugh out loud" im sure you get the idea of many more now after that example though

 

[MeachTheMonster]

interesting but i would say that preservation of self is also preservation of whole because you and i are apart of one in the same but maybe not depending on beliefs

maybe those who preserve strictly self first have gone through things in their life that make them more inclined to act in that sort of way but they previously were not? a very likely situation to occur and would that rule out the possibility that they are not built that way genetically or would that not actually matter because either way they still have a choice in deciding which moral code to follow.

The person you describe is not a sociopath, just cautious due to life experiences. A sociopath is unable to see past self preservation. Mentally they can't understand why a person would put others before themselves for any reason.

as far as cancerous morals there are plenty of people who do things by their own code like "yea man ill only take these 2 drinks i gotta drive home tonight but ill be able to drive as long as i dont get t00 buzzed laugh out loud" im sure you get the idea of many more now after that example though

I wouldnt call that a moral. That's a justification for doing something wrong.

 

[Dirty_Jerz]

I swear this comes up every now and then on some "Without religion there are no morals" bs. First, let's the obvious out of the way: Religion itself doesn't follow its own set of morals. Thou shalt not kill was thrown in the bushes long time ago

irrelevant

Second, some of those morals are just common sense breh, you don't need religion to know that you should "Honor thy Father and Mother", "Not Steal" or "Commit adultery". Those are basic rules to live in any society lest you be ostracized.

so what your saying is when the first evolved humanling baby was born and raised it was like "i cant wait to honor my mom and pop and i wont ever steal from that chimp down the street" ? how does that even register with what is known of by evolutionary theory? that wouldnt even make sense to think about since at that time since at that time they were not living in luxury

Matter of fact I'll go as far as say that religion inspired itself from pre-existing morals in order to assert itself and gain power. Would've been counter-productive otherwise.

Brehs talkmbout "You don't kill because you learned morality from religion"

you dont murder because you dont have to but back then? back then friend they were living in the woods with no internet or widescreen tvs with mini fridges next to them

 

[Turenne]

No i'm basically saying it would be impossible for someone to escape religious teachings because its been all around us for centuries, implicitly or explicitly. So of course atheists would have absorbed those teachings of good and evil, right from wrong etc. in some way or another...even if they weren't raised in the church.

...and your point is?

 

[Dirty_Jerz]

The person you describe is not a sociopath, just cautious due to life experiences. A sociopath is unable to see past self preservation. Mentally they can't understand why a person would put others before themselves for any reason.

so what about the people who are cured of these "personality problems"? there are people who do change their mind on things maybe it is possible that their genes are re arranged based on what they force themselves to believe

I wouldnt call that a moral. That's a justification for doing something wrong.

isnt that what a moral is? a justification for doing something wether it be right or wrong according to what you believe is right or wrong

or put it this way maybe a means to justify and end or a justification of means to and end or a means that in the end is true justice based on belief

 

[ExodusNirvana]

you dont murder because you dont have to but back then? back then friend they were living in the woods with no internet or widescreen tvs with mini fridges next to them

And there still was no need to murder unless someone threatened your life via taking your food source, your mate, infringed on territory, etc.

 

[Dirty_Jerz]

And there still was no need to murder unless someone threatened your life via taking your food source, your mate, infringed on territory, etc.

exactly but that doesnt make it moral either that is another trait of survival mode

not wasting energy in excess when you need it for first priority things like hunting for food because we all know its easier to attack weaker things to eat instead of killing something the same size as you and have a good chance of not winning that fight

 

[MeachTheMonster]

so what about the people who are cured of these "personality problems"? there are people who do change their mind on things maybe it is possible that their genes are re arranged based on what they force themselves to believe

Some personality disorders can be cured. Some can be reduced through therapy, And some can only be tolerated.

isnt that what a moral is? a justification for doing something wether it be right or wrong according to what you believe is right or wrong .

or put it this way maybe a means to justify and end or a justification of means to and end or a means that in the end is true justice based on belief

I disagree. Morals have more to do with ones relationship with the rest of the world, not just their opinion or likes/dislikes. If what your saying is true that would mean things like going to the gym or eating tacos is part of a persons moral code