Evolution favors those organisms that don't try to kill each other constantly. That explains the "good" that you attribute to a supernatural entity.
Only humans regularly try to kill each other, and they do it over their blind beliefs in a human-created religion or political system, and that's why we probably won't survive.
I live a moral and ethical life, without the need to follow Santa Claus. I do think there may be some sort of central force that combines us all, but I have no idea what it is, nor will I argue for it. It could just be some sort of quantum entanglement. Who knows? I only argue to get some sense into people, so that they stop killing each other over beliefs, and so that we don't become extinct due to bullshit.
But you're very passive/aggressive, so I don't think you're following the "good" path right now. Jus sayin.
First, you need to stop thinking you're the smartest thing on the planet and curb your arrogance. Because you're part of the problem at this point. That's the same way that religious fanatics think.
Dude? Don't you ever watch Animal Planet, Nat Geo, Wild Kingdom... Lion King? Other animals kill each other all the time! I could actually make the argument that because of our spirituality, we are LESS likely to kill each other! I know that may sound bizarre to you but think about it... at some point, some cave man had to lay down beside another cave man of a different tribe and trust he wasn't going to kill him and his family in the middle of the night and steal his stuff. A mutual spirit greater than self would help provide that kind of trust and faith.
I grew up on those shows, esp Wild Kingdom. Other animals of the same species do kill each other at times, but it is rare, because obviously evolution does not favor that trait. But humans kill each other at a phenomenal rate. And the big purges are due to wrong beliefs in human-created religions or politics.
There are over 1,700 recorded wars in human history. Only 142 were over religion. Most of the time, they are over power and control of resources.
You're totally wrong about evolution, that's exactly what it favors and that's a vital aspect to natural selection. Survival of the fittest... have you never heard that phrase? For MANY species, the foundation of their "social society" is rooted in dominance by the alpha male who kills his challengers.
You SAY that you have a moral and ethical life but I've never known any human to say anything different. Obviously, some humans are lying, don't you agree? If you don't have any accountability for your morality and ethics they are only as strong as your character in a given situation. In other words, your morals can change depending on circumstances.
No, morals don't change. They are stamped into us early during the period of growth and discovery, and many are instinctual. Only religious/political rulers can get you to do something against your morals. Like killing strangers, because you're told to. And there's a lot of mental health issues that come from having to follow those orders. Morals are trying to stay the same. Having to break those morals based on an order, has a big consequence on what evolution has established.
Morals DO change, especially if they have no foundation. It's very easy to proclaim that you're not a liar but I'll bet that at some point in life, you have indeed told a lie. That means you ARE a liar in spite of your moralistic claim to the contrary. People with no spiritual moring will often abandon their moral principles for the sake of their own personal needs.
How many devoutly spiritual people do you reckon get abortions? I would be willing to bet it is very, very few. Abortion is a good example of people abandoning their morals for the sake of vanity and convenience. They literally justify killing another human being and have convinced themselves there is nothing morally wrong about that.
And on your next post you said:
doesn't nature cast judgement on species when it renders them extinct? If a certain species doesn't meet adequate requirements of reproduction it goes extinct.
That's evolution. There was no judgement cast. Nobody said that that life form was right or wrong. It just couldn't keep up and died out.
Yes, nature judged a species no longer met minimal requirements of survival. The judgement cast was extinction.
You're totally wrong about evolution, that's exactly what it favors and that's a vital aspect to natural selection. Survival of the fittest... have you never heard that phrase? For MANY species, the foundation of their "social society" is rooted in dominance by the alpha male who kills his challengers.
LOL, kills his challengers even! Whew doggies that's a bold assertion. How many babies does your alpha male have? Boss claims a species survives by killing itself. The big and the bold get the headlines in the newspaper, but they are not the ones creating all the babies.
MISCONCEPTION: The fittest organisms in a population are those that are strongest, healthiest, fastest, and/or largest.
CORRECTION: In evolutionary terms,
fitness has a very different meaning than the everyday meaning of the word. An organism's evolutionary fitness does not indicate its health, but rather its ability to get its genes into the next generation. The more fertile offspring an organism leaves in the next generation, the fitter it is. This doesn't always correlate with strength, speed, or size. For example, a puny male bird with bright tail feathers might leave behind more offspring than a stronger, duller male, and a spindly plant with big seed pods may leave behind more offspring than a larger specimen — meaning that the puny bird and the spindly plant have higher evolutionary fitness than their stronger, larger counterparts. To
learn more about evolutionary fitness, visit Evolution 101.
MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest individuals in a population.
CORRECTION: Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate. In most populations, organisms with many different genetic variations survive, reproduce, and leave offspring carrying their genes in the next generation. It is not simply the one or two "best" individuals in the population that pass their genes on to the next generation. This is apparent in the populations around us: for example, a plant may not have the genes to flourish in a drought, or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. These individuals may not be the "fittest" in the population, but they are "fit enough" to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation. To
learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To
learn more about evolutionary fitness, visit Evolution 101.
Misconceptions about evolution
