I would ask the smug evolutionist, "Are you upset that things have not turned out well for you?
What heresy! How dare you entertain such a notion?"
And to those who extol the evolutionary code of jungle morality, I would ask, "How can you get angry at someone for wronging you, when, by your own code, you claim that there is no right, no wrong, no absolute? How can you dare to judge?"
What say you all?
2007-08-16
04:24:17
·
26 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
They believe in absolutes....they are absolutley sure there is no God!
2007-08-16 04:33:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by dreamdress2 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Common Sense? There's a misnomer.
Your screed makes precious little sense of any sort. "Smug evolutionists" are upset that "things have not turned out well" for them - how, exactly?
Evolution has nothing to do with any moral code. You're confused, my man.
As usual, you're conflating evolution theory with both atheism and nihilism.
But I'll bite anyway. I don't believe there's any absolute standard of morality. I'm a "moral relativist" and proud. This doesn't mean that there's no such thing as "right" and "wrong" - it's simply to admit that right and wrong are statements of the relation between particular things, rather than things-in-themselves. It's "right" for a hot dog to be hot, whereas it would be "wrong" for ice cream. In human terms, one man's meat is another man's poison. It's only religious blockheads who insist that one set of rules suffices for all people in all circumstances throughout eternity.
(But even "Christians" are compelled to admit that God changed the rules at least once - so I suppose they're moral relativists as well.)
2007-08-16 11:31:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by jonjon418 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well, like the typical anti-evolutionist, you're thinking in a tiny logical box. Believing in biological evolution doesn't necessarily dictate someone believe in 'jungle morality'.
Morality is a human creation -- evolutionists might say we've 'evolved' far enough to understand morality, and therefore expect others to respect this moral code. Being angry at someone for wronging us isn't just a 'moral' issue; in society, we have common agreements on the way we should all behave & cooperate.
Believing in the scientifically evidenced and readily demonstrable force of 'natural selection' as a possible explanation for the diversity of life on the planet does not mean we are hypocritical believers in 'jungle morality'.
Try thinking outside of the box, and not being so smug yourself!
2007-08-16 11:32:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by BZR 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I would say your question lacks all common sense.
1) How did things not turn out well for the "smug evolutionists"?
2) Evolution has no connection with any code of morality.
So your question has no real valid question to answer
2007-08-16 11:31:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with morality. It's a theory of biology.
I say you need to read some books. You seem very confused, and to be honest, quite smug yourself. That's not a great way to start a dialog with people.
2007-08-16 11:31:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by N 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Fun fact, "Heresy" is merely the Greek word for "choice."
Heretics are then "one who chooses."
Anyway, thanks for correcting your phrasing. Morality is not the law of the jungle, and no "evolutionist" claims it is. It's much more complicated than that. Take any philosophy class, you'll see we've struggled with it long before Christ or even Abraham.
2007-08-16 11:30:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
You are combining morality with evolution. They are entirely different topics. Go back to school and learn the difference or risk exposing your ignorance here again.
Btw: things have turned out very well for me.
2007-08-16 11:32:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by Paul Hxyz 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Don't act so smug yourself when you're so ignorant of what evolution actually is (or in this case, isn't). Evolution is not a moral code. You've failed.
Not only that, but many favorable morals (like altruism) are positively selected by natural selection, because they're good for everyone in a population.
2007-08-16 11:28:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
2⤋
Hello,
It seems you are misinterpreting evolution, religion and resultant styles of life making broad generalizations and not realizing what you are talking about; in short you seem a little off your rocker today. Go to bed and sleep it off.
SO SAY WE ALL!
Michael
2007-08-16 11:35:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by Michael Kelly 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ok Romeo! How has evolution not turned out well for any of us? WE all know we were just put here, wham bam thank you ma'am, but we do evolve as well as many other creatures adapting to our environment.
2007-08-16 11:31:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I thought it was all just about a basic moral code of conduct, anyway.
2007-08-16 11:31:13
·
answer #11
·
answered by Blue Oyster Kel 7
·
0⤊
0⤋