I have a moral objection to death, did you know a natural process will eventually kill 100% of all our loved ones?
__________________
Science is not an occult enterprise like alchemy. It's not for nobles or royals in their palaces or monks in their cathedrals. Science is neither a faith nor sorcery. It is a provable fact that can transfigure and transform us out of very core. All the suffering of humanity; the ages of misery and darkness; science can change that. But what use is it if we don't bring its power to everyone? Mankind everywhere is in desperate need. They are waiting for the blessing of science.
Just a thought: Fitness to survive doesn't mean the strongest, it means the best adapted to the environment in some advantageous way. I remember seeing a video where two strong male beetles were fighting and didn't notice the sneaky little weaker beetle wander in and take the female they were fighting over. His genes will pass on while the strong ones lose out. Different traits give different advantages.
As people posted before, it's not about morality. Nature is cold.
__________________ Part of the group of ebil non-christians who will not convert as soon as you throw bible verses at them. - To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Unlike some people, I live up to my lack of standards. - AV1611VET (added with his consent).
Long time ago when i posted here under my surname Lindstrom, i posted a moral obejection against the evolutionary theory.
Now science causes people to percive the world in the way scientist discribes it, - it doesn't deal with ethics.
But if we assume that evolution is true, you will need a mere heart of stone to trust in it.
The evolutionary theory argues that people surviving oppression and rivalry are more fit then those who don't... the people not surviving it, is less fit, and did not have a chance to carry their genes to the next generation.
I find it somewhat cruel ethically speaking, and i do have moral objections towards the theory. don't you as a scientist have that?
Here's the ironic thing; atheists who understand evolution and evolution in the context of animals that function in groups as humans do, are well equipped to make evaluate ethics, and at the very least can choose between selfish and socially responsible behaviour.
Christian fundamentalists generally back the elephant and actually believe economic behaviour should be on the basis of free competition. That is, they favour bringing the law of the jungle into human society.
The Christian Fundamentalists are far more 'Darwinian' than true evolutionists are.
Creationist narcissism in a nuyshell -- "I don't like it, so it must be false."
heh well in their defense all huamsn do it, how many atheists and such seem to base their non belief because they dislike god and such rather then probability of him existing. To me a flawed argument is a flawed argument no matter wether it's true or not heh. Someone can be right, but have flawed beliefs in it. If evolution is false, then their arguments here such are that one are just as bad and flawed. I don't see evolution being false, but still have to face palm every time I hear argumentum ad consequentium. Like you said the egotism that we create reality based on what we like or dislike, then again they also think the universe was made soley for us, so egotism isn't unusual with their arguments.
…how many atheists and such seem to base their non belief because they dislike god and such rather then probability of him existing.
In my experience, none. I’ve never met any atheists who said they don’t believe in gods because they don’t like them. The reasons for not believing I’ve heard from atheists are all along the lines of, “it doesn’t make sense”, “it’s childish”, “there are no persuasive arguments” or “there is no sound evidence to support it”.
However, I have heard plenty of religious believers say they believe in God because without their belief their life would have no meaning or purpose; they couldn’t be good without their God; they would be no better than animals; their children would never go to heaven and other such arguments from consequences. Now that I think about it, many of the arguments they make for believing in their God are arguments from consequences driven by insecurity. Perhaps your assumption above is yet another case of projection.
Long time ago when i posted here under my surname Lindstrom, i posted a moral obejection against the evolutionary theory.
Now science causes people to percive the world in the way scientist discribes it, - it doesn't deal with ethics.
But if we assume that evolution is true, you will need a mere heart of stone to trust in it.
The evolutionary theory argues that people surviving oppression and rivalry are more fit then those who don't... the people not surviving it, is less fit, and did not have a chance to carry their genes to the next generation.
I find it somewhat cruel ethically speaking, and i do have moral objections towards the theory. don't you as a scientist have that?
Darwinism is rejected based on the evidence. Moral implications are a secondary indication, not what Creationists primarily acknowledge.
__________________ "I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty. But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they will change their ways." -Jesus of Nazareth
Linear Mode
