(September 9, 2012 at 11:59 pm)IATIA Wrote:(September 7, 2012 at 10:37 am)elunico13 Wrote: The belief that we are time + matter + chance doesn't account for the most basic assumptions we take for granted. In this thread it would be morality.
Of course it can. Let us take murder, not self defense, but pure unadulterated premeditated murder. Is that immoral? The majority would agree that it is, so how can we come to this conclusion without your god's help?
Simply. IF the first humans were to ignore morality and just go around killing each other off, one of two things would probably happen.
One. They would eventually kill themselves off before they thrived and a different species arises.
Two. They are the different species and through developing intellect that prompted desires, they also realized that killing each other off would put themselves at risk of extinction.
No god, no book, only survival of the fittest.
The answer is on page 1.
The atheist is inconsistent when he/she doesn't randomly kill anyone they don't like.
James Holmes was consistent with the premises of evolution in colorado and arrived at a valid conclusion based on the logic of evolution. Not a sound conclusion though.
Atheists are consistent when supporting abortions or killing unconscience people dependent on others. (genkaus' standard)
They are inconsistent when they consider the feelings of others.
All I get are arbitrary answers that vary between atheists on this forum. I guess we should follow the standard of whoever has the coolest screen name. right?
James Holmes acted consistent with what evolution teaches. He evolved from an animal, and when he murdered those people, He acted like one. You can't say he's wrong since evolution made him that way.
