(November 10, 2017 at 10:13 am)Khemikal Wrote: Institutions, religious or political, resist change by their very nature and by necessity of survival, and so too do the people who serve them. They're explicitly organized so as to be normative.
This is why I say our species morality is evolutionary.
There were no political parties or written religions 200,000 years ago. But our primate cousins, just like today DID evolve to be social. Creating groups and giving them labels DOES create order and increase potential to the survival of the group. It does not mean, EVEN WITH atheists, that they are correct 100% of the time. It would only mean, correct or incorrect that for good or bad, we'd only say that our ideas of morality are still ultimately natural.
Unfortunately evolution, regardless of species, isn't a moral claim, but a process and it doesn't care if one ant colony defeats another. If Hitler had won the war instead, again, evolution would not care.
HAVING SAID THAT, that is not a justification for what that monster did. Evolution ALSO produces empathy and compassion and that can win too. But our justifications as a species to do harm to others or to be kind to others is not magical. It is still up to us what we choose to do.
I do not see the morality of an atheist saying Che was good so lets replicate Cuba as good. I do not agree with atheists who love guns and ignore our flooded market as being moral. I do not see Ayn Rand's economics as moral either. But for those who do, we'd only agree that our positions are not magically handed down to us, or that humans have magic powers to communicate with another world to give us our respective conclusions.
The only core thing "atheists" have in common is a lack of belief in a God or Gods or deities.
"Off" is not a political party or economic view. If a theist wants to know what the individual atheist's position on any given topic is, they have to ask the individual atheist.