by Justin
The Consequences of Atheistic Evolution
What happens when we take out absolute morality established by God? Watch this video to find out. Note: This video may scare children and is disturbing, but there is no blood, gore, or foul language.
- Justin
Related posts:
Secured by
I want to spend time telling you how wrong all your assumptions are…but would you listen? Probably not.
There are no consequences of ‘atheistic evolution’. Evolution is what happens. It isn’t an ideology. It isn’t a worldview. It’s merely what life does. It says nothing about how people should act or what their morality should be.
If things like this scare you away from understanding science, I’m sincerely sorry for you.
morsecode, I have no problem with science. Why would I? It is the study of God’s creation and the laws he set in motion! When I say Atheistic Evolution has consequences, I mean that there are not transcendent and absolute morals.
You have no problem with science because you have a different definition of the word. Unfortunately, you and I don’t get to make those definitions.
It would be like me saying that I have no problem with God…and I’m defining ‘God’ as ‘a peanut butter and jelly sandwich’.
Fine, even is we define science as “(from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge” or “knowing”) is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how physical reality works”, I have no problem with it.
Sure you do. Because you have issues with the scientific method. That same method that has led us to understand gravity and evolution.
You choose to ignore the scientific method and believe whatever makes you happy. That, sir, is not science.
Not at all. I have no problem with the scientific method. The scientific method has four steps (source: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html)
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
I agree with all these steps. I believe in gravity and I believe in microevolution. Science is still working on the theory of macroevolution. Many scientists may believe in macroevolution, but science works many times by testing the status quo. Macroevolution is not the only possibility and to say it is would be closed minded and unscientific.
No such thing as micro and macro evolution. There is only evolution. You’re just one of the creationists (or learned this from one) who realized that completely denying evolution was getting you laughed out of conversations.
I have no problem with people knowing I deny the evolution of a kind to a completely other kind. Everyone out there can read that sentence. I am not trying to make myself look like I approve of that. What I am saying is there is changes within a kind, but there is not adequate evidence for changes from one kind to a completely different kind.
Now we are off topic. Do you have any comment to the video I posted?
Alright, I’m out. I have no interest in listening to someone parroting the ‘kind’ teachings of Kent Hovind.
Have fun with that.
This has nothing to do with Kent Hovind. We know that the wolves, dogs, and coyote scientifically likely has a common ancestor. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-species.asp
I really liked the video Justin. That is a really interesting cause-and-effect. God bless you with bringing in a harvest of souls!
Thanks Levi, I’m glad you liked the video.
Hi Justin!
What is it about the video that you find important?
It is a moral dilemma that is equally problematic for those who claim that some fully unknowable supernatural creator being beyond space time dictates what is moral and what is immoral.
Evolutionary theory is not sociobiology by the way, so the target victim in this video is inconsistent or a straw man.
Sociobiology is a synthesis of several different disciplines that only *attempt* to explain social behavior in all species by considering the evolutionary advantages.
Even the most strictly interpreted sociobiologists only assert that behavior can be “partly explained” as the outcome of natural selection.
Have you actually read Origin of Species, Justin?
Are you familiar with Stephen Jay Gould?
How about the practical and observable benefit to human society of altruism and reciprocity in regards to individual and species survival?
You can respond here or at our thread over at the Great Southern Humanist Society (an affiliate of the American Humanist Association).
Thanks!
This short is a work of fiction. Leave it to the religious to take moral lessons from fiction.
The questions are guided, the responses trite, the horror is put in solely to scare you into thinking that there is some horrible immoral killer just beyond every atheist.
But had the victim answered “well god says you shouldn’t?” Does that offer any real answer that is not easily shunted aside, as happens with the answers in the film?
“You’ll go to hell.”
“I don’t plan on going to hell.”
“God says you shouldn’t.”
“You don’t believe in god.”
Furthermore, the villain whom Justin has linked to people he obviously has no experience with (atheists) makes little sense from an actual scientific, human viewpoint.
I assure you that real atheists have real answers to things such as “why you shouldn’t kill people” and they are much more evidence and reality based than simply “god said not to.”
You yourself should demand a better answer to the question “why should we not kill people?” than that, anyhow. Because if god says you shouldn’t, then one day he may say you should.
See also Egypt. The plagues that befell the Israelites because King David counted his soldiers after a battle. Bears mauling children for making fun of a bald prophet.
The man holding you powerless, torturing and killing you because you do not understand his twisted logic – I couldn’t come up with a better metaphor for ole Yahweh, in fact.
Why, if we’re going to do this like Justin does, and totally misrepresent the other side in the debate, let’s say the killer was Christian, and put this on an atheist website!