Evolutionists concerned with morals an oxymoron?

I'm curious to know where evolutionists draw their morals? Where do they draw the line? Evolution is an excuse to do whatever makes you feel the best without consequences, so why do you draw a moral line when your philosophy is based on regecting the line.

Basically, how can you denouce war as wrong when there is nothing in the universe to make it so. Why is sleeping with anyone ok(a very selfish desire) yet when it comes to war(not very selfish(and i mean that because a family who's son dies in iraq isn't going to be caring about oil prices more than their sons death)).

There is a reason the 1900's was one of the bloodiest eras of history, its because man was given the excuse of evolution.

Where does this sudden burst of moral fiber come from, if there is nothing in the universe to give it to us.

I have read all the garbage of "social evolution" reguarding the forming of laws and people accepting things "for the greater good", but all of thoes things that are accepted are selfish laws, protecting your person. Abortion is accepted, where it is a federal crime to even touch a balled eagle's egg.

It is a sad day when we put the embryo of an eagle over the embryo of a human. When a theory that has very little possibility of happening is accepted, whereas the small possibility that human embryo's just might be alive and a seperate entity are rejected for convienience.

EDIT---typos



[edit on 19-7-2008 by Bob Sholtz]

[edit on 19-7-2008 by Bob Sholtz]

most western people are brought up by or in the vicinity of religion, our morals didnt have a religious tie to them when our parents told us not to hit people, evolution beliefs came after we had these morals, and almost everyone who isnt a psycho/sociopath has their morals made from their own experiences, its not like when you decide evolution is more logical that you drop all you're morals and start slitting throats because you believe that there is no magical spaghetti monster in the sky, jsut because we dont think the flying pink unicorn doesnt actually exist doesnt mean we're all pro-choice, also, thus far, sciene has pulled through, carbon, potassium and argon dating has pretty much been proven, and thus proving the existence of dinosaurs and whatnot, sorry about the rambling and run-on sentences but yeah, i thikn its ignorant to think as you do, or how i think you do due to this post

There are so many misconceptions about evolutionists in this post, that I am pretty concerned it is just bait, but oh well. I will bite at least once.

First, all evolutionists are not atheists. Some of us believe in a god, or many gods, or something Divine but other than a "god" and some are in fact utterly godless. Those of us that believe in some sort of Divine or God(s) believe that evolution is the way that Divine or God(s) set nature up to work within the natural world. That evolution is a Divine mechanism in a sense.

Secondly, not all of us, even the atheist ones, go around having sex randomly. And some Christians I have known have been quite promiscuous. I think the sleeping around thing is caused by someones personal and psychological makeup, not their religious affiliation. (or lack thereof)

Morals do not have to be derived from the Bible. Some people have a natural and very strong moral sense that is built right into them. An atheist evolutionist would say this is because it has furthered our species to cooperate and treat each other in certain ways. Sometimes it actually exceeds the commandments of the Bible, even in atheists. Some people who are Christian ignore the commandments or teachings of the Bible they find inconvenient. (Particularly the admonitions of Jesus not to judge or hate, but rather to love and to forgive) Again, the moral sense, and moral behavior, doesnt really correlate to religious affiliation. It is a personal thing, with some people having a highly developed moral sense, and others, (even Christians) having little moral sense.

Lastly, not all atheists are "pro-choice." And not all Christians are "pro-life." It would be nice if all people could be boxed up and labeled easily, but the truth of the matter is we need to get to know one another individually. We are a little more complicated than some leaders might want us all to believe.

I hope that helps a little.




[edit on 19-7-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


Well, first off, no need for war, ever. It seems so primitive and contradictory to ones existence. I would think pure evolutionists (i.e. no hybrid beliefs) get morals from the presumption that humans have one and only one life to live. For someone or something to strip or deprive them of that one and only life seems unfair, relative to this world.

-Joe-

I would answer, but then I realized that you simply forgot to specify that you wanted a response from ATHIEST evolutionists, not theirstic ones.
See, if you made that distinction, there'd be less people who may take this the wrong way and bring offense against you.
Most morals are there because for the most part, they have some common sense to them, especially since hmans are for the most part communal critters. Helping another helps yourself, helps the community.
Or at least I'd reply along those lines if I were a athiest evolutionst, but obviously, you simply forgot to extrapolate which kind you meant.

- The morals in the bible were already in society. It wasnt "invented" by the bible. And just like people of faith will break a commandment, so will evolutionsts bend their belief if the must: if the the bible says, do not kill, and someone comes to kill YOU, you will most likely try to defend yourself, maybe killing the person.... Even if you belive in do not kill.

Thats where somone takes i further, and thinks that it is not murder if you take an abortion under surtain conditions (before x weeks have passed). If one were to follow the rule "do not kill" 100%, then what about bugs, bacteria etc?? you cant even walk around the house before you have crushed a few. WE ALL HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE. I draw it where i think it is most rational to draw it.


And talking about where one gets morals from... what about gay marriage.. The bible says NO, but still many churches wed them. I wonder what excuse the churches will give for breaking the word from the bible, or will the bible be modified again some day, where the no to homo parts are erased?


We have, like it or not, a common set of morale that shold be followed. If you dont like parts of it... fight for your rule then. Its been done many times before, by the way of war.

Luckily most evolutionistst i know wont make war, only fight through demonstations, words and peaceful means. Thats how you can change the world today.


[edit on 19-7-2008 by Daniem]

Kantian nonconsequentialism for instance says you mustn't do an act unless it is a universal law - not because an angry "God" will send you to hell for it, but because we're smart enough to know otherwise that it is the wrong thing to do.

You're comparing scientists to Nazis I think - the Nazis did terrible experiments to fellow human beings because they felt that at all other life was below their own ideological construct.

I have no idea why you think WWII was because of evolution - wars were happening long before the science of evolution.

If there were a Jesus, why was he supposedly crucified before the theory of evolution came into being? If there were no excuse of evolution back then, no one would have gotten hurt, right?

But God killed his own son (so the story goes) so that sins could be forgiven - that seems a bit violent.

I think people just like to go on with holier-than-thou clap trap to claim the moral high ground just because they share the same common paranoid delusion as others that a big man, in white robes, is watching them from above just waiting for them to screw up.

[edit on 19-7-2008 by mattguy404]

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
Basically, how can you denouce war as wrong when there is nothing in the universe to make it so. Why is sleeping with anyone ok(a very selfish desire) yet when it comes to war(not very selfish(and i mean that because a family who's son dies in iraq isn't going to be caring about oil prices more than their sons death)).

So... Sleeping with lots of people is morally equated to war? Am I following this? Somehow I am having trouble seeing the equality.

Consider: Violent behavior is counter to species survival (could kill the whole species) - ergo, immoral; sleeping with many encourages genetic disbursal, ergo not immoral. [shrug]

There is a reason the 1900's was one of the bloodiest eras of history, its because man was given the excuse of evolution.

Uh... I doubt it. War is encouraged amongst humans for population control, behavior control, and to make a profit. Some of the richest in this world got rich by selling to both sides of conflicts.

Where does this sudden burst of moral fiber come from, if there is nothing in the universe to give it to us.

Sudden burst? Where? Humans have always had compassion and love. But they are deceived and manipulated by those who would have power and money.

I have read all the garbage of "social evolution" reguarding the forming of laws and people accepting things "for the greater good", but all of thoes things that are accepted are selfish laws, protecting your person. Abortion is accepted, where it is a federal crime to even touch a balled eagle's egg.

Lest you are unaware... Humans are not (yet) on the brink of extinction; bald eagles are.

Selfish laws? Most laws are attempts to control people. The few, like the Bill of Rights, were designed to promote respect of others. Is respect of others a "selfish" thing to promote?

It is a sad day when we put the embryo of an eagle over the embryo of a human.

Again... Which species is at the brink of extinction and which is overrunning the planet? (You do know that the God of the Bible gave the Hebrews the definitive point at which the soul enters the body? It is "at first breath.")

When a theory that has very little possibility of happening...

I do believe we see clear evidence of the theory in action: "germs" are evolving to tolerate our antibiotics. Just one example. Why do you believe this phenomenon is so astronomically unlikely, especially with this evidence at hand?

...is accepted, whereas the small possibility that human embryo's just might be alive and a seperate entity are rejected for convienience.

Personally, I feel that unwanted children are a bad addition to society as a whole (and it is selfish to force a woman to bring a fetus to term and then abandon it to the world), given that studies have shown, over and over, that sociopathic and psychopathic behavior crop up virtually always in those who were unloved, untouched with caring hand, as a child.

Now if those who are so concerned for the prospective life were to adopt and provide for, in terms of food, clothing, shelter and (especially!) love, every child they forced into this world, I would fully approve of the position.

But as it stands now, many would force to first breath a slew of unwanted babies who have a very high likelihood of being neglected and abused. And this promotes a higher percentage of socially draining individuals.

[edit on 7/19/2008 by Amaterasu]

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


um...hell no

see, you have many things in your post

these things are called lies

you have been fed them and that makes me very sad

evolution is no excuse for anything, it's science.
evolution has no bearing on where a person draws their morality from, as there are many who believe in both divinely inspired morality and the theory of evolution

...so no
no no
no
no no no no

you need to sort some things out and realize that accepting the scientific reality of evolution doesn't mean accepting some sort of all encompassing worldview.

I don't get what evolution has to do with morality. This makes no sense.

Morals have nothing to do with Evolution or Creation. Just because you dont believe the Christian God created us as a species does not totally negate your "heart". We determine what is right and wrong based only on what sits right with our own ego and consciousness. We have collectedly decided upon certain things since we began as a race. God didn't right Hammurabi's code, yet we still follow many of the rules he wrote to this day.

From what I understand religious people only set their life out according to the book they base their beliefs on – If the book says homosexuality is wrong they’ll accept it as the word of god only because it’s in the book. They won’t think outside the book – thinking is done for you – believe this and nothing else.

(Why would you believe anything else? the book is the word of god, if you think outside the book you’re believing in something that’s not the word of god)

In this mentality, the moral code is strictly based on the book, the moral code never changes. What was moral 2000 years ago is still moral now – the book doesn’t change the moral code doesn’t change.

Christians can’t understand that without god’s moral code (a set of beliefs you must set your life on) you can’t recognize right from wrong. Without god’s plan there would be anarchy. On behalf of an atheists perspective I would say we simply get our morals from ourselves – from what we learn and experience over the years as we develop. Morals have and will continuously change over time according to how we perceive ourselves and the world we live in.

If we get out morals from god then where do animals get their morals from?
Yes animals have morals – there was a test done where two rats were placed next to each other in separate cages. When one rat would eat the other was shocked, after some time the rat understood this and eventually starved itself to death so the other wouldn’t get shocked. This test reveals that even rats have morals. So if animals have morals that must prove we don’t get our morals from god

[edit on 21-7-2008 by andre18]