Is There a Point To Living a Moral Life?

[Mister Agenda]

We share the exact same morality. Atheists are keen to point this out and  try claim credit for it ignoring that much of this moral progress was spearhead by deeply religiously motivated people who valued people as God creatures and the world as his creation. If the world is as you think it is then we should care about what exactly? Making ourselves comfortable as possible before we die and are dissolved back into the uncaring cosmos? Of course atheists don't think this way but why? I'd say it's because there is more there than you claim there to be.

Much of this morality was spear-headed by Quakers. If you're a Quaker, I'm willing to give you some props for your tribe's historical contributions to ending slavery. Much of the resistance to ending slavery was spear-headed by other Christians. When it's pretty much all Christians on both sides, it's pretty meaningless to crow about it being a Christian accomplishment. 

 If you're some other denomination, there you go, taking credit for something done by people you don't agree with enough to belong to their denomination. Not to mention ignoriing the contribution of rationalist Enlightenment thinkers of the time who criticized slavery for violating the natural rights of men.

If the world is as we think it is, why shouldn't we care about it? The universe doesn't care about us, but we care about it and we care about each other. We're the only kinds of things capable of caring about anything. Caring about stuff is part of our nature. Barring mental problems it is pretty much impossible not to care about something. As a fellow human, this shouldn't mystify you.

---

Ready, fire, aim. Esq you must have skipped my post. Apparently Chas only read the last sentence. Evolution is not a complete solution.

Please point us to the law that says everything must have a complete solution.

---

Evolution is not random chance.
It is natural selection.

And mutations come from where? You must support intelligent design.

I don't believe you're really this stupid. Mutations are somewhat random, within rather narrow physical constraints. Natural selection is what imposes order and function on reproducing organisms by imposing addtional constraints on mutations, namely that they must not reduce the chances of the organism that has them of successfully reproducing. It's a sorting process that could be said to be intelligent in the way an algorithm could be said to be intelligent, but does not involve conscious design. I don't believe that you're really so ignorant as to think that what downbeatplumb described really is so-called 'intelligent design'. Which just leaves the obvious alternative that you are wanking off on us.

---

 I necroposted ...dunno what to do to take it back other than delete it...

And I got caught in it. Apologies, everyone.

---

Don't know if you noticed how old those quotes are....

I did not, and I was on such a roll, too!