there are a couple of long threads going right now about evolution & abortion.. .
if evolution were true, how could there be any basis for morality?.
So morality is a common set of values agreed to by a group and enforced on any who disagree by threat of punishment. Until that group changes or is compelled to change by a stronger group. Might makes Right. Majority Rules. Morality is a shifting sand without any absolutes. In other words morality is a fiction.
Those who believe in evolution should cooperate with the group only when it is to their advantage. To do otherwise is foolish.
there are a couple of long threads going right now about evolution & abortion.. .
if evolution were true, how could there be any basis for morality?.
cantleave: there have been lots of threads on just about any topic you care to name. Might as well shut down the forum.
A human is an individual, not a group. The human herd is not homogenous, so morality on one continent does not translate to morality on another. The Nazi herd was okay with killing Jews. If they had won the war it would have stayed moral. Was burning widow in India moral until law passed against it? What happened to the hard wiring? Maybe some short circuits?
cofty: What makes you moral and how do you determine what is or isn't?
adamah: I have not lost faith in God and thus have a basis for morality which is absent for the disciple of evolution
there are a couple of long threads going right now about evolution & abortion.. .
if evolution were true, how could there be any basis for morality?.
Why should anyone care if they pass on their genes?
bohm, your answer is inadequate and illogical
there are a couple of long threads going right now about evolution & abortion.. .
if evolution were true, how could there be any basis for morality?.
bohm: "basis for morality because other humans exist and they are just like us"
Yes, and all of us are going to die and turn to worm food. So why should any human give a crap about any other human? Isn't the logical thing to do is make the most of brief time here? Sense of morality is just some defective chemicals in brain.
there are a couple of long threads going right now about evolution & abortion.. .
if evolution were true, how could there be any basis for morality?.
It seems to me that the "morality" of evolution should dictate that the individual does what benefits self. Why put community above self unless it benefits self?
If an attempt were made to apply to a community, then it would make sense to cull the herd of non-producers like elderly or disabled.
there are a couple of long threads going right now about evolution & abortion.. .
if evolution were true, how could there be any basis for morality?.
Then moral judgments do not exist except as delusions. There is no reason for any individual human to care about another one other than for satisfaction of the individual's needs or wants.
there are a couple of long threads going right now about evolution & abortion.. .
if evolution were true, how could there be any basis for morality?.
There are a couple of long threads going right now about evolution & abortion.
If evolution were true, how could there be any basis for morality?
or should I say "untermensch"?
So abortion is ok for financial reasons, gender reasons, or any reason up until the actual delivery of the "potential human"?
a old thread was bumped recently in which posters from 9 years ago raised objections to evolution basesd on personal incredulity regarding sexual reproduction.. i remember an elder in one of my old congregations saying something to the effect that "how could evolution be true, if men evolved before women...blah blah" you get the picture.. i have refreshed my memory of a chapter in nick lane's excellent book "life arising - the ten greatest inventions of evolution" and put together a summary.
it would be great if others would add to it - cantleave, adam, tiktaalik, s&r, bohm et al?.
here is my starter focusing on the problem with non-sexual selection.... if the driving force in evolution is the struggle of selfish genes to pass on copies of themselves to future generations, then sex seems counter-productive.
This discussion seems to focus on why sex is an advantage. Totally absent is any plausible explanation of HOW it could have started, been maintained and spread.
