Why be good?

[Thumpalumpacus]

But this is where the problems begin for atheists. Science informs us of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which entails the "survival of the fittest" principle of natural selection in which the strong dominate and kill off the weak, etc. This principle can be readily observed in the animal kingdom, where stronger, faster, more aggressive alpha males get to mate with the females and produce offspring. Weaker, less dominant males do not.

A significant incoherence in atheist thought becomes clear when atheists insist, on the one hand, that the natural order is governed by the blind, random forces of nature, resulting in the "survival of the fittest" evolution of species and yet, on the other hand, they complain about the problem of evil, or decry violent acts of Muslim terrorists, or excoriate those who engage in "immoral" behavior – most especially among Christians.

But if, as atheists claim, God does not exist and all of us are simply the byproducts of natural selection’s "survival of the fittest," why shouldn’t the strong among us dominate and kill off the weak? Why shouldn’t we adopt an "every man for himself" attitude and get what we want from whomever we want it by whatever means we can get it?

A prolonged sidetrack into the is/ought fallacy.

By the way, Randy, why are you avoiding my questions?

eta: I see that he has, finally. strike this question.

---

Thank you, Ben.

That's a very clear, straightforward answer. Now, given the fact that we've spent what? 3 million years or so evolving as a species under the "survival of the fittest" paradigm, when did this shift to the "let's work together for the common good" approach that you're suggesting actually occur?

I'm not convinced this is the reason for "good" behavior, but I'm interested your opinion.

The term is "survival of the fittest", not "survival of the cruelest."

You've had the distinction pointed out to you several times. It seems fair to assume that you are willfully avoiding this point.