Re: Morality v.s Atheism (1)

Refuting the idea that God/Religion is necessary for morality

PART 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=LQCSMAEahwk

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• god
• morals
• morality
• atheist
• atheism
• bible
• christianity
• religion

[SilveradoNL]

Oh yeah bible = perfect source of morality.

Kill others for working on sunday, enslave your neighboor countries

In other words no one actually takes bible serieus these days, even if they say so!

[canderson2750]

oh my god your beautiful 

[ecclesiastes118]

@C00lblkatheist Okay, I see your point now. It wasn't very clear originally. But I still don't see how you can reconcile that to evolution. For example: If species are perfectly adapted to their environment, how can fish, through a process of natural selection, develop characteristics for living/breathing in the air and walking on land? None of that would be beneficial mutations in the transitional phase. Seems a bit counter-productive to the environment they inhabited.

[C00lblkatheist]

@ecclesiastes118 "That's obviously not the case"

Yes it is. When environmental pressures change, the species eventually dies off, or adopts to that environment and survives. But neither of these events happen in one or two generations. It takes TIME. Also "their" is referred to the environment in which they were first adopted to, so they are perfectly adopted to "that" (first) environment, and if the environment changes and the species doesn't, they will die, just like the polar bears.

[ecclesiastes118]

@C00lblkatheist You're forgetting deforestation. Loss or change of habitat has also been responsible for the extinction of many species. So climate change can happen quickly, like global warming, but evolution happens slowly? You just said, "each species is perfectly adapted to their environment." That's obviously not the case. It's your job to speak on behalf of evolution. I speak against it. What's "clear" is that you don't understand the mechanism by which things "evolve"; natural selection.

[C00lblkatheist]

@ecclesiastes118 Comets usually wipe out the majority of life, and some animals have gone extinct by men killing them off. As for the polar bears, global warming is a fairly recent event, and evolution is a fairly slow process. It's clear you don't know what evolution is, so you cannot speak on behalf of it

[ecclesiastes118]

@C00lblkatheist If each species were perfectly adapted to their environment, then why did so many species go extinct? Why can't the polar bears adapt to this so-called "global warming?" Why are we so concerned about it? Well, I'm not concerned...

Anyways, I'll get a pm to you tomorrow maybe. I'd be curious to see your response.

[C00lblkatheist]

@ecclesiastes118 Hell, there's no such thing such as "more evolved". No species is "more evolved" than another species. You are thinking of evolution as a ladder, when it's not. Evolution is more like a tree, and no species is "better" than the next. Each species is perfectly adapted to their environment. Humans aren't "more evolved" than chimpanzees or flowers. If different species aren't more evolved, how can members within the same species be "more evolved?" 

[C00lblkatheist]

@ecclesiastes118 That's NOT what evolution teaches, I know, I study it. Some humans are more fit, or less fit to the environment, but we are all equally evolved. People who don't practice the same morals are on the end of the bell curve, while most humans are in the middle, and extremely moral people are located in the front. We are all equally evolved and all share 99.9% of our DNA. If we weren't equally evolved, it would show in our DNA, NOT how moral some people are

[ecclesiastes118]

@C00lblkatheist Friend, that's exactly what evolution teaches. I can't fully cover this on a youtube forum, so I'll go ahead and send you a personal message.