How to easily defeat any argument for God

[Alan V]

When many atheists, particularly on the internet appeal to evolution in such discussions about morality, they rarely ever explain what they means by it here, what exactly are the features being described that are being selected for? Are you referring primarily to human behavior? Human beliefs? Our biological feelings? The biological components of our perceptions ? etc..

I consider basic human morality to be a specific evolutionary strategy. We are both a social and an intelligent species, so morality is inevitable. Other animals have other strategies which do not include morality.

Our evolved human nature gives us certain likes and dislikes, our sense of fair play, our empathy toward others, and our game-theory interactions. Those are at the base of our moral systems.

The atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg provides such an explanation. He acknowledges a core morality shared universally, that people perceive as objective, but this is illusory. Our strong biological feelings and emotions produce essentially a mirage, a perception of a moral order out there, that doesn't actually exist, much like free will.

My perception of a moral law, of moral oughts and obligations, duties are perceived as objective truth, while not real, are not the product of social constructions, or religious indoctrination etc.., but strong evolutionary components, that produced a functionally useful, but false set of beliefs regarding moral foundations.

If you are talking about how religions have mythologized human morality here, then I agree that such assessments that morality is "out there" are illusory.

What I consider objective is our human nature, including the benefits or harms which comes from moral principles or their violation. On such a basis we have evolved our moral understanding, which is why we have drifted away from religious over-simplifications -- however much they contributed to our earlier thought on morality.