It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity

[LadyForCamus]

So, you don't look at the video? Fine, keep your ass talking. It's just hot air with some smell.

No, I didn't look him up before posting and spelled his name. I just remembered him. Since I actually watched his work. As opposed to you, who don't look at his work but only on wiki shit.

*emphasis mine*
Oh so now you're too good for Wikipedia? So I guess that means you never used it as a source before?

oh wait... A quick search of your name with "wiki" yielded 4 pages of results. Here's just a small sample because YOU use Wikipedia a lot dude.

---

Hitler didn't really get elected. He got the majority of seats, that's true. But if the conservatives hadn't formed a coalition, he wouldn't have found a majority to rule. And what's more, Hindenburg wouldn't have appointed him, if Papen hadn't vouched for Hitler.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstags...ember_1932

Carnegie wasn't. Look above. That he donated some of his dosh later on doesn't revive the ones he ordered to be killed.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike

The WMD tale is exclusively American - to make their own population toe the line. It's based on a single false source. An impostor named Curveball by the services, who previously had been kicked out by the German BND, who issued explicit warnings when he showed up in America.

abaris Wrote: Where do you think, hell comes from? Obviously from the Germanic goddess Hel and her domain. It's nearly the same word in German as well as english, so the connection is rather obvious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_%28location%29

Just as with communism, they're not taking human nature into account. They were hoping for humans to behave without any rules, which is totally absurd, of course. And in their vast majority, they're anything but communist. That's a pretty good wiki page on the different forms of anarchism and what they wanted society or better, the absence of society, to look like.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

---

This just takes the cake though

That's a pretty good wiki page on the different forms of anarchism and what they wanted society or better, the absence of society, to look like.

So Wikipedia is fine as long as YOU'RE using it to make a point, but if it's being used against you it's no longer credible?  

You sir are a clown, always poppin off at the mouth, you really need to shut up and go sit down somewhere.

Now that that's out of the way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal

His 2013 book The Bonobo and the Atheist examines human behavior through the eyes of a primatologist, and explores how much God and religion are needed for human morality. The main conclusion is that morality comes from within, and is part of human nature.

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/03...use-of-god

Further, de Waal doesn't go so far as to equate animal goodness with morality. "I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a 'moral being'," he writes. "There is little evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not directly affect themselves."

What sets human morality apart, he believes, depends on our greater powers of abstraction, and involves "a move toward universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring, and punishment. At this point, religion comes in."

A scientist and non-believer, de Waal isn't saying here that religion is required for human morality, only that the two have been entwined throughout human history.

*emphasis mine*
As you can see, he is clearly not a christian like you think he is.

The following is from an article that Frans de Waal wrote for the NY times (which I believe qualifies as his work   ).
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...thout-god/

At the same time, however, I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a “moral being.” This is because sentiments do not suffice. We strive for a logically coherent system, and have debates about how the death penalty fits arguments for the sanctity of life, or whether an unchosen sexual orientation can be wrong. These debates are uniquely human. We have no evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not affect themselves. The great pioneer of morality research, the Finn Edward Westermarck, explained what makes the moral emotions special: “Moral emotions are disconnected from one’s immediate situation: they deal with good and bad at a more abstract, disinterested level.” This is what sets human morality apart: a move towards universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring and punishment.

*emphasis mine*

Now what?

Holy ad hominem, or tu quoque, or both, Huggy. Why don't you try staying on track and addressing abaris's point to you?