Atheism Intelligent Design Naturalism

Rabbi Moshe Averick divides naturalist morality by zero

Spread the love

Image result And gets anything, everything, and nothing as a result. From Moshe Averick, rabbi and author of Nonsense of a High Order – The Confused World of Modern Atheism at Algemeiner:

For the non-believer, the statement “murder is immoral” does not reflect some underlying existent reality or truth about our universe. It is simply a statement about the way people in our society feel about things today.

The realization that the term “moral values” is interchangeable and synonymous with personal preference, societal conditioning and the latest public opinion poll, is not very uplifting. As atheist philosopher Michael Ruse put it: “Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and hating toothaches and marking student papers…Now that you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what’s to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman [raping and pillaging]? Well, nothing in an objective sense.”

Despite this, I am certain that both Epstein and Campolo are very pleasant people and I’m not worried about them committing violent crimes. This is because they are not real atheists. They have not formulated their value systems by following an atheistic world view to its logical end, which is amorality. They are Judeo-Christian Atheists. Their values are drawn from the eternal, unshakeable, God-centered values of the society in which they have been raised. More.

Elsewhere, that has been called “living on capital.”

Epstein and Campolo’s Judeo-Christian atheism works okay as long as every else believes we are bound by the moral law. But if they succeed in enlightening the rest of us, we won’t believe that. Then what?

A related problem is that naturalist atheists think that the human mind is shaped for fitness, not for truth, which means that even where moral truths are sensed, they are only illusions, convenient or otherwise.

What’s really odd is hearing these people carry on while in the grip of a moral illusion of their own, maybe the latest a-crock-a-lypse.

The comments at Algemeiner are interesting.

See also: Moshe Averick: What’s keeping the Origin-of-Life Messiah?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

11 Replies to “Rabbi Moshe Averick divides naturalist morality by zero

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    “The first principle of value that we need to rediscover is this: that all reality hinges on moral foundations. In other words, that this is a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws.”
    – Martin Luther King Jr., A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

    “Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and hating toothaches and marking student papers… Now that you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what’s to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman [raping and pillaging]? Well, nothing in an objective sense.”
    – Michael Ruse – atheist philosopher

    Contrary to what Michael Ruse and other Darwinists may believe, morality, instead of being subjective and illusory, is found to be, as the Rev. Martin Luther King held, objective and real.

    The following study shows that ‘Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional’:

    Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows – November 29, 2012
    Excerpt: People are able to detect, within a split second, if a hurtful action they are witnessing is intentional or accidental, new research on the brain at the University of Chicago shows.
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....brain.html

    The following study found that humans ‘have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life’,,,

    The Moral Life of Babies – May 2010
    Excerpt: From Sigmund Freud to Jean Piaget to Lawrence Kohlberg, psychologists have long argued that we begin life as amoral animals.,,,
    A growing body of evidence, though, suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. With the help of well-designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone.,,,
    Despite their overall preference for good actors over bad, then, babies are drawn to bad actors when those actors are punishing bad behavior.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05.....&_r=0

    This following study shows that objective morality is even built/designed, in a very nuanced fashion, into the way our bodies differentiate between ‘hedonic’ and ‘noble’ moral happiness:

    Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness – July 29, 2013
    Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,,
    The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,,
    But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers.
    Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,,
    “We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....161952.htm

    And although a ‘instantaneous moral compass’, and the nuanced genetic responses between noble vs. hedonic happiness, are pretty good for establishing that “there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws” (Martin Luther King), the following studies go one step further and show that our moral intuition transcends space and time:

    Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD
    Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared.
    http://www.quantumconsciousnes.....Flies.html

    Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) – (Oct. 22, 2012)
    Excerpt: “But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,,
    This phenomenon is sometimes called “presentiment,” as in “sensing the future,” but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future.
    “I like to call the phenomenon ‘anomalous anticipatory activity,'” she said. “The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can’t explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It’s anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it’s an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....145342.htm

    Since they hold morality to be subjective and illusory, there is simply no coherent explanation that a materialist/atheist can give as to why morally troubling situations are detected prior to our becoming fully aware of them or before they even happen. Whereas the Christian, (since he holds morality to be objective and real, and even holds morality to be based in the ‘infinitely good’ nature of God who upholds reality itself), fully expects morality to be detectable in reality in some way.

    And although the acceptance of the pseudo-science of Darwinian evolution has had a tremendous corrosive effect on the overall Judeo-Christian morality of western cultures,,,

    Rejection of Judeo-Christian values
    Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide.
    “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75).
    Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.).
    http://www.gnmagazine.org/issu.....-world.htm

    The Cultural Impact of Darwinian Evolution – John West, PhD – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh4whzh_NU

    And although the acceptance of the pseudo-science of Darwinian evolution has had a tremendous corrosive effect on the overall Judeo-Christian morality of western cultures, it is interesting to note exactly where Darwinian thought has had its most direct corrosive effect on morality.

    Racism!

    Darwinian evolution, no matter how much present day Darwinists try to distance themselves and Darwin’s theory from the horrors of the holocaust,,,

    Was Darwinism Banned from Nazi Germany? – Richard Weikart – November 21, 2016
    Excerpt: This notion that Darwinism was banned in Nazi Germany is pretty widespread on blogs, especially those by atheists and freethinkers.,,,
    If we want to know whether Darwinism was taught or banned in Nazi Germany, the logical place to start would be to look at the schools and universities. The Nazis were zealous about controlling the educational institutions, so they could inculcate their ideology into the minds of the youth.
    What was in the official Nazi biology curriculum and the textbooks? As it turns out, the Nazi Ministry of Education published curricular guidelines in 1938, and the biology curriculum mandated extensive teaching about evolution. Further, the National Socialist Teachers’ League developed a biology curriculum in 1936-37. Of the ten major topics covered in the higher grades, one was biological evolution and another was human evolution. I have examined numerous biology textbooks published in Nazi Germany, which were approved by the Nazi Ministry of Education, and they uniformly taught Darwinian evolution, devoting considerable attention to it in the higher grades.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03304.html

    National Center for Science Education Whitewashes Scientific Racism – Michael Egnor – August 11, 2015
    Excerpt: Scientific racism and eugenics were mainstream science — consensus science — from the publication of Darwin’s theory to the end of World War II.,,,
    Science education in the century after Darwin was the teaching of scientific racism. Darwin stressed that man is an evolved animal, and that differences between the races had a biological basis and were evidence of the superiority of Europeans and the inferiority of Africans. I saw the textbooks and journals in my medical school library–and it was scientific racism in the textbook Civic Biology that motivated much of the opposition to the teaching of racist Darwinist ideology in public schools in Dayton, Tennessee, in the Scopes Trial.
    Segregation and eugenics were inspired and validated by the scientific consensus that blacks were inferior to whites and that integration was scientifically unwise and even catastrophic.
    The kids in Harlem that Rosenau cites who fought against discrimination in blood banking, and the scientists who demonstrated that interracial transfusions were safe, were the “science deniers” of their day. They were fighting against a racist scientific consensus taught by mainstream biologists and doctors for almost a century. They were fighting against the racism that was endemic in the science textbooks of the early 20th century.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....98451.html

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Darwinian evolution, no matter how much present day Darwinists try to distance themselves and Darwin’s theory from the horrors of the holocaust, is inherently racist in its makeup.

    The Complete Title of Darwin’s first Book:

    “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”

    In his second book, Darwin more directly stated the racism inherent in his theory than he did in his first book:

    At some future period … the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous [Having or suggesting human form and appearance] apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope … the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”
    Charles Darwin,The Descent of Man pg. 201, published in 1871:

    To this day, Darwinian evolution underpins the racist’s worldview. Dylann Roof, who was recently sentenced to death, walked into a church on June 17, 2015 and, during a Bible study that he sat partially through, shot nine Black parishioners dead.

    Here is Dylann Roof’s racist Darwinian worldview in his own words

    In Explaining Dylann Roof’s Inspiration, the Media Ignore Ties to Evolutionary Racism – June 24, 2015
    Excerpt: Dylann Roof’s apparent “manifesto” deals a little with themes of pseudo-scientific racism:
    “Negroes have lower [IQs], lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals. These three things alone are a recipe for violent behavior. If a scientist publishes a paper on the differences between the races in Western Europe or Americans, he can expect to lose his job. There are personality traits within human families, and within different breeds of cats or dogs, so why not within the races?
    A horse and a donkey can breed and make a mule, but they are still two completely different animals. Just because we can breed with the other races doesnt make us the same.”
    – Dylann Roof
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....97121.html

    Interestingly, and contrary to what Charles Darwin, the Nazis and Dylan Roof falsely believe, whites are actually genetically inferior to Africans and are not genetically superior to Africans.

    The Genetics of Blond Hair June 1, 2014
    Excerpt: ,,,When he and his colleagues studied this regulatory DNA in human cells grown in a laboratory dish, they discovered that the blond-generating SNP reduced KITLG activity by only about 20%. Yet that was enough to change the hair color.“This isn’t a ‘turn the switch off,’ ” Kingsley says. “It’s a ‘turn the switch down.’ ”
    “This study provides solid evidence” that this switch regulates the expression of KITLG in developing hair follicles,
    http://news.sciencemag.org/bio.....blond-hair

    Daily thought: blue eyes and other gene mutations, April 25, 2013
    Excerpt: “Research on blue-eyes has led many scientist to further affirm that humans are truly mere variations of the same origin. About 8% of the world’s total population has blue eyes so blue eyes are fairly rare. In fact, blue eyes are actually a gene mutation that scientist have researched and found to have happened when the OCA2 gene “turned off the ability to produce brown eyes.”
    http://www.examiner.com/articl.....-mutations

    Melanin
    Excerpt: The melanin in the skin is produced by melanocytes, which are found in the basal layer of the epidermis. Although, in general, human beings possess a similar concentration of melanocytes in their skin, the melanocytes in some individuals and ethnic groups more frequently or less frequently express the melanin-producing genes, thereby conferring a greater or lesser concentration of skin melanin. Some individual animals and humans have very little or no melanin synthesis in their bodies, a condition known as albinism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin#Humans

    “We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,” Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. “Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.”
    Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University “La Sapienza,” Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-

    Finding links and missing genes: Catalog of large-scale genetic changes around the world – October 1, 2015
    Excerpt: “When we analysed the genomes of 2500 people, we were surprised to see over 200 genes that are missing entirely in some people,” says Jan Korbel, who led the work at EMBL in Heidelberg, Germany.,,,
    African genomes harboured a much greater diversity overall.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....094723.htm

    Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations – (Nov. 28, 2012)
    Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins — the workhorses of the cell — occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,,
    “One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,”,,,
    “Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older.” (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,,
    The report shows that “recent” events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers.
    The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....132259.htm

    Also of note: The I.Q. tests, that have shown supposed large differences in the intelligence between races of humans, are all shown to be biased by overlooked environmental factors:

    Myth: The black/white IQ gap is largely genetically caused.
    Fact: Almost all studies show the black/white IQ gap is environmental.
    (i.e. children from an enriched learning environment always perform equally well on I.Q. tests, no matter what their race may be.)
    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-IQgapgenetic.htm

    Dr. Ben Carson is a prime example of overcoming strong peer pressure from his fellow African Americans trying to tell him to neglect his education, i.e. ‘don’t be like those white people’:

    Gifted Hands – The Benjamin Carson Story – movie
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDfS3chUOi8

    Verses and Quote

    Romans 2:11
    For there is no partiality with God.

    Numbers 12:1 & 10
    And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.,,,
    And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
    – The Declaration of Independence

  3. 3

    bornagain 77: You continue to amaze!

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    bornagain77 @ 2

    Darwinian evolution, no matter how much present day Darwinists try to distance themselves and Darwin’s theory from the horrors of the holocaust, is inherently racist in its makeup.

    The Complete Title of Darwin’s first Book

    On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

    He uses the word “Races” in the title. That does not makes the book racist any more than your use of the word makes your post racist.

    In his second book, Darwin more directly stated the racism inherent in his theory than he did in his first book:

    At some future period … the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous [Having or suggesting human form and appearance] apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope … the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”
    Charles Darwin,The Descent of Man pg. 201, published in 1871:

    Yes, he foresaw the “savage races” being exterminated by the “civilized races”. Not surprising given the way the colonial powers of that time, most of whom regarded themselves as good Christians, were behaving towards native people in Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, North and South America. But at no point did he say that he thought this was a good thing or that it should happen.

    Interestingly, and contrary to what Charles Darwin, the Nazis and Dylan Roof falsely believe, whites are actually genetically inferior to Africans and are not genetically superior to Africans.

    Darwin knew nothing about genes so he didn’t make any comments about genetic inferiority or superiority.

    The Nazis were philosophical opportunists who built their racist beliefs on a variety of sources including so-called “racial theorists” such as Arthur de Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain. It wouldn’t be surprising to find Darwin in the mix somewhere but is nonsense to argue that evolution was a necessary and sufficient cause of Nazism.

    What Roof apparently believes is more a pared-down version of Nazi racial belief adapted to modern-day American right-wing extremism.

    As for Darwin being a racist, yes, he held some of the beliefs of a man of his times which, to us, are racist.

    But this was the man who wrote of one John Edmonstone, a freed Guyanese slave, that he was:

    “a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Warton, and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently; he gave me lessons for payment and I often used to sit with him for he was a pleasant and intelligent man.”

    This was the man who also wrote in Chapter 21 of The Voyage of the Beagle

    I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have staid in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horsewhip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master’s eye. These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish colony, in which it has always been said, that slaves are better treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European nations. I have seen at Rio de Janeiro a powerful Negro afraid to ward off a blow directed, as he thought, at his face. I was present when a kind hearted man was on the point of separating for ever the men, women, and little children of a large number of families who had long lived together. I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of; — nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the Negro, as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil.

    I say that the man who wrote those words, who was so appalled by the cruelty he had observed, was not nor could have been a racist in the modern sense.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev, I did not claim that Darwin was a racist. I claimed that “Darwin’s theory,, is inherently racist in its makeup.”

    Read for clarity and understanding not for something to spin.

  6. 6
    Origenes says:

    Seversky: I say that the man who wrote those words, who was so appalled by the cruelty he had observed, was not nor could have been a racist in the modern sense.

    And I say that the man who wrote those words was not an atheist or was no able to formulate his value system by following his atheistic world view to its logical end, which is amorality.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev, if you don’t believe me that Darwin’s theory is inherently racist in its makeup, perhaps you will listen to a fellow atheist:

    Words & Dirt – Quotes 10-21-2015 – by Miles Raymer
    Excerpt: Let us try to translate the most famous line of the American Declaration of Independence into biological terms:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    According to the science of biology, people were not ‘created’. They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be ‘equal’. The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God. However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are ‘equal’? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. Every person carries a somewhat different genetic code, and is exposed from birth to different environmental influences. This leads to the development of different qualities that carry with them different chances of survival. ‘Created equal’ should therefore be translated into ‘evolved differently’.,,,
    So here is that line from the American Declaration of Independence translated into biological terms:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.

    http://www.words-and-dirt.com/.....0-21-2015/

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    bornagain77 @ 5

    Sev, I did not claim that Darwin was a racist. I claimed that “Darwin’s theory,, is inherently racist in its makeup.”

    No, you did not claim specifically that Darwin was a racist but, like others pursuing this agenda, you have done everything short of that.

    First, you have not even shown that the theory is racist. Nowhere does it discriminate with prejudice for or against certain races. The most you have is the references to the “civilized races” and the “savage races”. The oft-quoted passage concerning the possible extermination of the savage races does not express or even imply approval. Nowhere in his writings does he recommend that races which may have fallen out of favor with some other power should be wiped out, unlike the Old Testament where this was apparently common practice.

    Second, is it even conceivable that a man so obviously not racist could have knowingly constructed a theory that was?

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    Origenes @ 6

    And I say that the man who wrote those words was not an atheist or was no able to formulate his value system by following his atheistic world view to its logical end, which is amorality.

    He started as a Christian and, at one point, intended to enter the clergy. He turned to what we now call science and over time apparently lost his faith such that, in later life, he came to classify himself as agnostic.

    I don’t know what Darwin would have thought but I see morality as a logical consequence of human beings living in society not amorality because it has survival value.

  10. 10
    Seversky says:

    bornagain77 @ 7

    Sev, if you don’t believe me that Darwin’s theory is inherently racist in its makeup, perhaps you will listen to a fellow atheist:

    What makes you think I must automatically agree with all other atheists or that someone like this speaks for all atheists?

    In my view, moral codes are what people living together in society agree on amongst themselves by what you might call inter-subjective agreement. It’s quite obvious that, for the vast majority, a society which prohibits its member for going around stealing or raping or murdering whenever the mood takes them is going to be a much more congenial place to live than one where such behavior is rampant. It’s not too hard to come up with an agreed set of rules which regulate the way people behave towards one another in society and are binding on all parties. Do that and you have a moral code. No deity required.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever Sev.

    History, my post, and the quote I cited, speak for themselves.

    Darwin’s theory lay at the root of the worse ‘racist’ atrocities of the 20th century.

    & Equality cannot possibly be based in Darwinian ideology but must be based in Theism, particularly Christianity, in which all ‘souls’ stand equal before God and are all in need of propitiation.

    I’m satisfied that the unbiased reader can clearly see that fact and am also satisfied that the unbiased reader can see how pathetically weak your atheistic ‘excuses’ and denial are.

Leave a Reply