Which do you think makes more sense: morals evolving in social animals to further shared genes, or some distant entity that exists in another dimension who told us about morals that just happen to make biological sense?
2006-12-06 10:33:43 · 6 answers · asked by STFU Dude 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I would also note that not all the distant entity's morals make sense, but many of them (ie, do not kill) make biological sense.
2006-12-06 10:38:07 · update #1
fish -- think it out more. child abuse and are not good biological morals. That's the POINT.
2006-12-06 10:39:22 · update #2
If the question is sensibility, I would have to lean towards biological morals. They're simply a more tangible set of ethics.
2006-12-06 10:41:21 · answer #1 · answered by Lindsey Suzanne 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mother Nature gave me everything I needed to survive when I was born and I hate to say it Christians, but most people have a sense of right and wrong without your book, those that don't are mentally sick or sexually repressed which is not ,strictly speaking, biologically correct. Some of this mental sickness and sexual repression comes FROM the christian culture and to say it doesn't, is ignoring the statistics.
2006-12-06 18:57:37 · answer #2 · answered by enslavementality 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Law with-in; spiritual morals.
2006-12-06 18:51:20 · answer #3 · answered by guidedlight 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Biblical morals all the way-
2006-12-06 18:44:52 · answer #4 · answered by Mandolyn Monkey Munch 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Spiritual morals are infinitely higher.
2006-12-06 18:36:36 · answer #5 · answered by Sentinel 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What would you rather follow. The molester who is following his biological morals and going after your sister?
No. The point is, without God there would be no morals.
2006-12-06 18:37:19 · answer #6 · answered by Fish <>< 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋