Is Evolution a Good Moral Teacher?

[@CrossExamined]

Subscribe to our channel here ➡️ kzbin.info/door/edYGs_lqq1uNet0u7qlSyQ

[@Dane_Booker]

3 things that completely changed my life 1. I stopped thinking about the past 2. l read book : Your Life Your Game by Keezano 3. I started believing in God.

[@James.NewYork]

l need that book bro

[@mike.williams1999]

Thanks, l just bought it

[@BobbyORiley]

3 things that changed my life 1 Always thinking about the past 2 Reading ex Christian testimonies 3 Stopped believing in God No more guilt for being human No more Fear No more questions My peace of mind has never been better since I stopped believing in the boogieman bible God.

[@timothyyoung4463]

Great post, thanks Frank, Lord bless you!

[@CrossExamined]

God bless you!

[@h-dk.1377]

I am living in Germany. Are there books from Frank in German available?

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

It looks like one of his books is translated "Um Atheist zu sein, fehlt mir der Glaube"

[@CrossExamined]

At the moment, we only have books translated into Spanish. They can be purchased at impactapologetics.com/

[@gi169]

Thank You Cross Examined.

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

do you reply to every one of his videos?

[@gi169]

​​@@mamusipipalisajelo5419 It is my goal to reply to every CE video.

[@dr00g28]

@@gi169 Keep it up, brother!! I'm cheering you on 👏😁

[@gi169]

@dr00g28 Thank you awesome brother. God bless you and all your people.

[@dr00g28]

@@gi169 You are welcome beloved brother! God bless you as well

[@BUNJI82]

The answers given here assume a Christian apologetic belief system as their foundation. I'm a Christian with a close friend who's belief system is evolutionary, I cannot use these answers to refute his position because he is happy to accept that morals aren't precepts but are a human construct, he's happy to accept that they have no meaning beyond that which we give them, he's happy to go along with them being the result of a collective conscious effort to better ourselves, he doesn't need them to have their basis in a higher authority in order to see that they work practically as figured out by humanity over millennia via trial and error.

[@elkhuntr2816]

The question is which foundational belief system is true. He instinctively knows that there are certain moral standards that are objectively true such as murder and torture of an innocent child is true. If that's just subjective, then killing children can be justified under his world view. He instinctively knows that's not true because of his conscience placed there by God. The fact that he has a conscience and knows murder is wrong no matter what is evidence for God and that his world view can't possibly be true. This is the moral argument.

[@Chris_Sheridan]

Humans still go to war despite centuries of evidence of destruction and suffering caused by war - a victor always emerges. According to 'evolution' war is a good thing > survival of the fittest.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Morality is man made and different in each culture.

[@djs964]

Why does the lighting look weird?

[@somerandom3247]

Does anyone have an example of an objective moral, and an explination as to how you determined it to be objectively so?

[@CrossExamined]

This blog post may be helpful! crossexamined.org/objections-objective-morality/

[@pepperachu]

The point of objective morality is there's someone to enforce it no matter what. Many believe it's God of the Bible. And I would argue you can't have objective morality without a divine Lord because after that point you are subject to the whims of any system, government or times

[@somerandom3247]

@@pepperachu I dont think that morality is objective at all. not even if a god existed. Hence me asking for an example from those who claim to believe it.

[@somerandom3247]

@@CrossExamined Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read but it doesn't address my question here.

[@festushaggen2563]

Dear Humanity, You came from nothing, are going to nothing and everything you learn and endure through this life are for nothing. Whatever you are, become or do in this life will eventually be forgotten. Best Wishes, Evolution

[@lawrenceeason8007]

Reality is enlightening isn’t it? Except we didn’t come from nothing, we came from our parents. And we don’t go to nothing…we get absorbed back into the energy of the earth (law of conservation). We go through this life not for nothing, but the love and experience of life and those in it. Christianity is such a bankrupt view of life…as your statement here disregards and dismisses this life as nothing more than a stepping stone to a hope for an immortality that you cannot show is true/real. In our view we view life in the fullest. The beauty of it as it is in our real world, with all it has to offer. Cheers

[@rationeextrema3776]

Translation: if nothing lasts for eternity, then nothing in life has any meaning. It's ironic that you accuse non-believers and people who accept evolution of being nihilists when you're the one that believes this about the world if there isn't a God. It would be funny if you weren't so intent on convincing people of your depressing view of life.

[@theworld6710]

Evolution isn’t a belief system. It’s merely meant to be an explanation. An investigation into what occurred. Whether or not the answers are pretty isn’t relevant, and meaning is more the realm of philosophy than such sciences.

[@theworld6710]

So what? It being sad or depressing makes it no less true?

[@Polemistis0416]

@@lawrenceeason8007 That is very insulting what you said about Christianity. How is it bankrupting life and have you truly read the right Bible that isn't messed with my some modern writer? Your view on life is similar to what Christians see life through.

[@mjcube1830]

Another good one on this subject (the subject of morality). If God wouldn't exist nothing would ultimately be right and wrong. It's like the NAA’s (the New Age Atheists) don't want to admit this (that there is an Objective Moral Standard), because they've rejected God for all their life and actually hate Him. Like Frank has said in previous videos: It's a heart problem, not a head problem. Many atheists can agree that big crimes such as rape & murder is wrong, but in order to justify, why they are wrong, they have an issue. But what about all the other things that we do on this world (like in literally everything we DO). How do exactly know what's ultimately right and wrong.. see that's the interesting question, that many atheists haven't asked themselves. Let's take an example of something that's not that bad as murdering and raping someone, but that many people still have different opinions of why it's right or wrong: Lending money out and adding debt on that money. How do we know, that people who lend money out and add debt on that money are wrong. They will say that they're not wrong, since they're earning good and adding extra money to their bank accounts, which then makes them happy. And vice versa: How do we know that the people who are against lending money out, maybe because they've been in debt before and it almost ruined their lives are wrong? (Like in the "Why" of things..) Why are "X" people wrong (or right) and why are "Y" people right (or wrong)? Again the question isn't why is rape, murder and lending money out and adding debt on that money is wrong: The question is: Why is everything that we do on this planet RIGHT or WRONG?.. Which can only leads us to the final question: What is The Ultimate Truth? And the Ultimate Truth is Jesus Christ, who is God reviled in human flesh, that died on the cross after being brutally tortured to bear the penalty of our sins and rose from the dead on the third day and exalted to glory - and He will come again to judge the living and the death. There is no other Objective Moral Standard than our Saviour Himself.. GLORY TO JESUS (KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS) I pray that Jesus Christ forgives everyone that TRULY wants to be saved & that he protects Dr Frank Turek at all costs, AMEN ☦

[@NickGagnon-y7e]

Morals are not as hard as people think.

[@CrossExamined]

What do you mean by that?👀

[@NickGagnon-y7e]

@@CrossExamined I mean its not hard to be a good person. Its basic empathy and human understanding.

[@mve6182]

@@NickGagnon-y7e And you don't need a God for them....

[@NickGagnon-y7e]

@@mve6182 Correct.

[@schlauchmeister234]

@@NickGagnon-y7e "I mean its not hard to be a good person. Its basic empathy and human understanding." - Why is that moral, other than you think it is?

[@SwornReaper]

Can someone explain to me that last part that he said about evolution giving us moral and thought (that is it is true), then he asked why it is true? I still didn't get that one.

[@katamas832]

He is a moral realist who believes that for morality to exist there needs to be a standard outside of humans for it that transcends them. Don't worry if you don't get it, under any scrutiny it falls apart and they have to make worldview shaking presuppositions and complete redefinitions to make it all work.

[@chloemartel9927]

​@katamas832 seems that is the very leaps you take to buttress your worldview.

[@cloudzero2049]

It's a philosophical idea that says that if evolution is true, in the sense that all of our thoughts emotions and beliefs are merely a product of random chance (or material "programming" through chance mutations), then why trust it? Said another way, "why believe that evolution is true if evolution is what gave us that thought?" I don't use statements like this because I believe that most beliefs should be based on evidence, and it's nearly impossible to use something non-material as evidence . However, it's that same search for evidence and truth that lead me to conclude that there is far more evidence for a creator than against one. I do not have the faith to be an atheist.

[@therick363]

@ and the search for evidence and truth shows there is far more evidence for no god, and only natural explanations. Doesn’t take faith to be an atheist-that line shows people don’t understand the situation.

[@chloemartel9927]

@therick363 you just love putting your willful ignorance on display here. But there is an upside. You help the algorithm thus growing Cross Examined's audience.

[@frankguetta9529]

How do I join CrossExamined running club?

[@CrossExamined]

🤔

[@frankguetta9529]

@ You seem to have some pretty good runners amongst your followers. 100 metre sprint to long distance. Quick out the blocks.

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

@@frankguetta9529 I’ve never heard of this, what? where is this club lol?

[@frankguetta9529]

@ It’s on here in comments. Individuals turn up mocking scoffers. Then we ask some simple questions just like Frank suggests they ask. Then whoosh, they’re off. Like Usain Bolt some of them. Others are more marathon like runners. Gone for days some of them. Then they appear again skulking around looking for another go.

[@mve6182]

A moral standard without a God is not an illusion, as mr. Turek states. Without God, moral standards are subjective (to a certain degree), but that doesn't make them false or dillusional.

[@pepperachu]

Well yes they are. Because without an absolute moral law giver. Well, then that's just your opinion man

[@pepperachu]

Well I would say yes it does. Because without a absolute moral law giver, then, it's just your opinion man

[@mve6182]

@@pepperachu Morals are not 'just an opinion'. I'm pretty sure you will notice that all over the world, people's morality is generally comparable (don't kill, don't steal etc). I think this basic morality is intrinsic to human kind and is in our DNA. However, morality is also partially subjective, which explains why our moral standards in the Western world are different from moral standards in Islamic countries. It also explains why moral standards change over time. For example, slavery used to be morally accepted all over the world, but today we consider it a crime. So in short, morality is subjective, but it is not just an opinion.

[@jensswales]

​@@mve6182 moral is not just opinion, its mass opinion

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

I really don't understand the idea of us evolving from other animals meaning we can't trust our thoughts. If the point is that believing things that are true isn't evolutionary advantageous, that's a bit silly. Obviously it is better to have true beliefs about whether or not there is a lion sitting there behind that bush, and if it would kill me, or whatever. Truth-tracking is evolutionary advantageous. (tangent?) On the other hand, humans obviously have biasses, like in-group bias or confirmation bias, in which case you could argue that we sometimes can't trust our own thoughs. I don't know how that fits into what I mean; I just wanted to mention it

[@seanpierce9386]

Your tangent isn’t a tangent. The theist position is that since there is a God, they can trust their senses. But that’s obviously not true either, as you point out. This is the Problem of Divine Hiddenness, and it basically debunks the alternative position. Reality has nuance and presenting an oversimplified straw man isn’t doing Dr. Turek any favours here.

[@JiraiyaSama86]

@@mamusipipalisajelo5419 Perhaps you want to start with looking at animal behaviors and compare them to those of humans in a civil society. What do they do to survive compared to us?

[@JiraiyaSama86]

@@mamusipipalisajelo5419 One more thing. If you're hoping to have a conversation with me, it may be tough luck. Most of my comments now get nuked. Sorry in advance.

[@gi169]

Do you comment on every single Cross Examined video? How odd for an anti-theist.

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

@@gi169 not as much as you for sure, but I do go around through the comments sometimes

[@thorpeaaron1110]

Evolution is a science and science isn't a moral teacher it can explain to us how our word works and why we are they we are but it can't teach us how to love and care for our fellow humans. I'm not sure how this a gotcha moment.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

Exactly

[@maxhagenauer24]

Science can explain it, if we have a well defined definition of right and wrong then there objectively must be a right and wrong thing in that situation according to it and science can explain what it is.

[@gi169]

Evolution isn't science Thorpy it's a religion.

[@therick363]

@@gi169support that claim….

[@gi169]

​@@therick363 You support my claim by your devotion to commenting your silly nonsense religiously on every CrossExamined video f00l.

[@Thebravemovement]

Except evolution never happened…

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

to use a Frank Turek line, what do you mean by that? (like do you think that mice and rats didn't come from a common ancestor? if they did, that is evolution)

[@Thebravemovement]

@ they’re the same kind of animal… that’s not macro evolution lol

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

@@Thebravemovement oh I see. Evolution happened, just not evolution where one 'kind' became another 'kind' is what you mean. Then what makes something the same kind of animal? For example, rats and mice and rabbits are all different species, and may or may not be in the same 'kind', yet they are more genetically different from each other than humans and chimpanzees, which I'm assuming you wouldn't put in the same 'kind.'

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@mamusipipalisajelo5419no such taxonomic group as “kind”. Doesn’t exist. So tell us what is a “kind” in the bible.

[@Thebravemovement]

@ the same kinds of animals can interbreed, have offspring. You can go try to breed with a monkey if you’d like but we are not related.

[@larzman651]

Adaptation im pretty sure we all agree to. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil

[@lawrenceeason8007]

Is a brand new species…a species that didn’t exist before…just adaptation?

[@larzman651]

@lawrenceeason8007 how do you know your species that's new just hasnt been seen? We have new discovery it doesn't mean that it wasn't here already , we just now seen it.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@larzman651because we have observed new species in real time. Not an adaptation of an existing species…such as moths who have developed genetic modifications to blend with the industrial age soot on vegetation.

[@larzman651]

@lawrenceeason8007 you need to prove they are new , they more than likely already existed you just now seen them.

[@larzman651]

@lawrenceeason8007 we already have moths that have learned to change their color for environment and the such. So already here and adaptation. Peppered moth

[@katamas832]

1:03 What the problem is that Frank is absolutely clueless on Evolution. So basically everything he says afterwards just falls apart, and is wrong on so many levels. But it always fundamentally starts with him just not understanding the topic. And there's really no reason arguing with someone on a topic they think they understand, when they don't. The first step of convinding them is for them to admit they don't understand what they are talking about, but that requires a level of humbleness that most fundamentalist Christians, which they hypocritically espouse but only when it comes to their God (humbleness only really meaning you should be unquestioning to my interpretation of God, aka my religion), they simply lack.

[@chloemartel9927]

This video has really gotten under your skin and hit the mark because you have apparently been chewing on it and watching it repeatedly for over 24 hours. Triggered and still managed to just whine and offer nothing of substance except your offended feelings.

[@TomMichael5678]

​@@chloemartel9927 🎯

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

I can't imagine that he doesn't understand it after talking about evolution for over a decade. he's just a grifter

[@katamas832]

@@chloemartel9927 Done making fundamentalist Christians look bad yet?

[@chloemartel9927]

@katamas832 done whining about God and Christians yet? You lead a miserable life hanging out here bashing your Creator.

[@tTtt-ho3tq]

Is there morality in the animal kingdom? Wasn't there in the garden, though? He did punish the serpent, didn't he? Weren't they all vegetarian in the garden? Does that mean animals are judged, too? Or will he create new ones? new ones with morality? and vegetarian. Will we be vegetarian like in the garden before? No more BBQ, then?

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

he would be really sad without his BBQ I'm sure, from down in the state of NC

[@tTtt-ho3tq]

The thing is there is no lack of anything in heaven, yet there'll be no BBQ. What does that mean?

[@hansdemos6510]

Dr. Turek presupposes an authority-based model for morality and then concludes that morality must be authority-based. Sounds circular to me. If you want to know where human morality comes from, you should go in without presuppositions like that, or put them up as falsifiable hypotheses, if you want to be all sciency and rational about it. But of course Dr. Turek's religious dogmas prevent him from doing that, which unfortunately makes him assume his conclusion.

[@mlwilliams4407]

Dr. Turek is sharing the invaluable truth that objective morality requires a transcendent source, such as God, because without such an anchor, morality would be subjective-varying between individuals and cultures. This isn't circular...it's deductive. It begins with the premise that objective moral values exist and reasons that such values need an unchanging, authoritative foundation to be binding. The conclusion is derived, not assumed. Every moral framework begins with some presuppositions. A naturalistic view might presuppose that morality arises from evolutionary processes or social constructs. The all-of-existence awareness shares that morality is grounded in the character and nature of a transcendent being. Both perspectives should evaluate their starting assumptions for coherence, explanatory power, and consistency with human experience. While Dr. Turek's arguments are rooted in his theistic framework, all of his points are logical arguments...and not dogmatic assertions. For example, he often challenges listeners to consider whether moral obligations and values make sense without a transcendent lawgiver. This invites dialogue rather than shutting it down. Morality’s origins aren’t only about authority but also about nature and purpose. If humans are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), moral understanding is part of human design. Romans 2:14-15 speaks of the law being written on human hearts, sharing that even those who don’t believe in God can act morally because of this intrinsic knowledge. This provides a basis for evaluating morality in a way that aligns with human experience without requiring blind faith. Dr. Turek encourages examining evidence for theism, including moral arguments, cosmological arguments, and historical claims about Jesus. These arguments are meant to stand or fall based on their reasoning and evidence, making them open to critical scrutiny. With love (as always), recommend striving for humility and curiosity in order for pure discovery, which will naturally lead to starting and growing a genuine relationship with our amazing God together.

[@hansdemos6510]

​@@mlwilliams4407 You said: _" Dr. Turek is sharing the invaluable truth that objective morality requires a transcendent source, such as God, because without such an anchor, morality would be subjective-varying between individuals and cultures."_ Your statement brings up more questions than answers. First of all, what do you mean by "objective morality"? If your definition of "objective morality" already includes an authority or depends on something external, then your view may very well already be circular. Secondly, why assume that something like "objective morality" exists in the first place? Is that what we observe? Thirdly, no supernatural explanation would be needed for an objective morality in the sense of a morality that would be valid independent of our personal convictions if we could establish that all humans indeed do share some moral convictions. And nature and the way our species has evolved could very well supply the basis for such an "objective" morality. Fourthly, if we observe the way "morality" works in our world, would you say it looks like it is "subjective" (whatever you think that is), or would you say it is "objective" (whatever you think that is)? Or is it perhaps a mix of both? To refer directly to your statement, if you look at "individuals and cultures", would you say that "morality" varied between individuals and cultures, or that it was the same everywhere and according to everyone? You know the answer to this, and you know it doesn't align with your views, don't you? You said: _"This isn't circular...it's deductive."_ I think it cannot be deductive, because the evidence is very much against your view. I think you are taking your religious dogma and then project it on the real world. You said: _"It begins with the premise that objective moral values exist and reasons that such values need an unchanging, authoritative foundation to be binding. The conclusion is derived, not assumed."_ But that is almost exactly what I said Dr. Turek is doing! That's as circular as you can get if your definition of the "objective moral values" you presuppose is already tangled up with the "unchanging, authoritative foundation" you also presuppose! Also, why do you think "objective moral values" should be "binding"? Is enforcement part of morality? In that case, no religion can lay claim to any moral authority whatsoever, because there is no evidence of anything supernatural having had any effect in our material reality ever. The fact that you happen to believe in enforcement in the afterlife is neither here nor there as long as the evidence for such an afterlife is lacking. You said: _"Every moral framework begins with some presuppositions."_ But why do we need to begin with a moral framework, when we are still trying to figure out if such a framework even exists or not? Why can't we just observe human behavior and see what we can learn about human morality to give our discussion a factual basis? You said: _"A naturalistic view might presuppose that morality arises from evolutionary processes or social constructs."_ Or it could explain the observed human moral behavior in light of what we know about our natural history and our social history. You said: _"The all-of-existence awareness shares that morality is grounded in the character and nature of a transcendent being."_ I am sorry, but I don't understand what that means. No transcendent being is in evidence, as far as I know. This is just something you happen to believe. You said: _"Both perspectives should evaluate their starting assumptions for coherence, explanatory power, and consistency with human experience."_ I agree. And a naturalistic explanation can do that, while a supernatural explanation cannot. You said: _"While Dr. Turek's arguments are rooted in his theistic framework, all of his points are logical arguments...and not dogmatic assertions."_ I disagree. Even just the fact that he assumes his God exists is a dogmatic assertion. You said: _"For example, he often challenges listeners to consider whether moral obligations and values make sense without a transcendent lawgiver."_ And they definitely can. Whether they do is a different matter, but they definitely can. You said: _"Morality’s origins aren’t only about authority but also about nature and purpose."_ I agree regarding nature, but I am not sure what you mean by "purpose". You said: _"If humans are created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), moral understanding is part of human design."_ As nothing like that is supported by the evidence, this is just another religious dogma that must be assumed *_before_* the associated view of morality makes sense. You said: _"Romans 2:14-15 speaks of the law being written on human hearts, sharing that even those who don’t believe in God can act morally because of this intrinsic knowledge."_ If we could truly identify some "law" or "rule" that *_all_* humans (except for some impaired individuals) shared, "written on our hearts" or enshrined in our DNA, that "law" or "rule" could be considered "objective" without us having to know where it came from. If it were truly universal, and we would all know it, it could be accepted and enforced by us, in whatever social context we would find ourselves, and no supernatural authority would be required or desired. You said: _"This provides a basis for evaluating morality in a way that aligns with human experience without requiring blind faith."_ I agree, but it also does not require a supernatural authority, and therefore contradicts what Dr. Turek (and you) are trying to argue for. You said: _"Dr. Turek encourages examining evidence for theism, including moral arguments, cosmological arguments, and historical claims about Jesus. These arguments are meant to stand or fall based on their reasoning and evidence, making them open to critical scrutiny."_ I appreciate that, but his evidence is insufficient and his reasoning fails. Thanks for your poetic words. Have a lovely day!

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

@@hansdemos6510 oh my, that is a long response!

[@hansdemos6510]

@@mamusipipalisajelo5419 You said: _"oh my, that is a long response!"_ But worth every syllable! (I hope)

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

@@hansdemos6510 LMAO I probably agree with you but I'm going to sleep now and will look over it more seriously when I'm not falling asleep

[@fcampos10]

Frank summed up really well the Transcendental argument: 1) If God does not exist, nothing is ultimately right or wrong 2) But right and wrong exist 3) Therefore God exists

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

What do you think about the idea of the idea of “right” being like the idea of “left”? Nothing is ultimately right or wrong or left, but clearly since I exist I know there is a left. also it’s just funny since right/left lol, a bit silly but oh well

[@maxhagenauer24]

How do you know the 1st premise is true?

[@fcampos10]

@@maxhagenauer24 Very simple, it's called an external reference. Since morality is an abstract/intelectual object it takes a mind in order to create/understand it. The only "external mind" capable of creating it is what we call God.

[@maxhagenauer24]

​@@fcampos10 What do you mean by an external reference? If morality needs a mind in order to create it and understand it then how is it objective? For something to be objective means that the truth of it depends on something separate form the preference or want of a being while subjective does depend on with someone wants or preferers. And if it is an abstract/intellectual object, that does not imply it needs to me form a mind. I can name many abstract objects that were not from a mind like numbers, mathematical concepts, geometric shapes, logical propositions, ect. And why would God be the only "external mind" able to create it and not humans if it were a thing created by a mind?

[@somerandom3247]

Us humans define right and wrong. There is no need for a god to exist for us to do that.

[@JiraiyaSama86]

No. It absolutely isn't. The "superior" survives and those who are "inferior" get left behind and eventually dies. The underdog can't win. Also, atheists. Can we agree that it's incompatible with Christianity?

[@seanpierce9386]

It’s incompatible with Biblical inerrancy. But animal suffering exists whether evolution does nor not, so it’s not as though there aren’t problems for your position. Your argument is that evolutionary values don’t align with societal values, specifically regarding weaker individuals. For the most part, modern society has grown out of the principles of individual fitness in favour of societal wellness. That’s because we, unlike most of the animal kingdom, have developed methods for survival that render natural selection obsolete behaviourally. But it’s fine because 1. that increases survival rates, and 2. natural selection doesn’t work on learned behaviours, only instincts. When we say that evolution has produced morality, we really mean that it’s produced society, which itself is influenced by ideas that undergo a kind of intelligence-aided natural selection. But we don’t mourn the death of ideas.

[@JiraiyaSama86]

@@seanpierce9386 No. That's not my argument. My argument is simply that E is incompatible with Christianity. Not society. Society isn't Christianity.

[@JiraiyaSama86]

How did I figure that the platform would torch my response already? Are my comments, which don't contain strong language, really that offensive? 😄

[@seanpierce9386]

@@JiraiyaSama86 It’s the keywords. I recommend putting your response in a note so that you can swap out your wording if it doesn’t send.

[@JiraiyaSama86]

@seanpierce9386 I've done it many times. Unfortunately, it's very clear, even on other channels, that a lot of what I say, for whatever reason, and no matter the loophole; they just want me to zip it. Believe me. I've done so many alternatives. I've noticed keywords. And still, they decide that they just don't want me to share. I don't use strong language. I don't throw insults. So many things. They just want me to zip it in many dialogs. Thanks for trying to help.

[@Mockturtlesoup1]

Evolution a good moral teacher? I don't think that even makes sense. I mean evolution explains why we have moral views(or why we are capable of learning moral beliefs, why we have empathy/sympathy, etc., but evolution isn't a "moral guide"(whatever that means.) I mean granted, at least it doesn't order people to carry out multiple genocides and mass infanticides, so at least it's not as bad as the Bible, but I dont recall hearing anybody state that we should base our morality on evolutionary principles(just like I've never heard anyone say we should base our morality on atomic principles, or thermodynamic principles.

[@edwardjackson9871]

Hitlers killing of the inferior races to propagate the flourishing of the superior races, survival of the fittest, was the morals put forth based on evolutionary belief.

[@therick363]

@@edwardjackson9871his flawed understanding

[@heavenbound7-7-7-7]

Nothing buttery 😂

[@CrossExamined]

🤣🤣🤣

[@macmac1022]

#1 Are morals objective? #2 Are there objective moral duties? #3 Is it immoral not to do an objective moral duty? #4 Does god do the objective moral duties? #5 Is it an objective moral duty to save a drowning person if you are of sound mind and can do it with no risk to yourself? #6 Would it be objectively immoral to punish someone for a crime they did not commit? #7 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it an objectively moral parent?

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

what are these questions for?

[@macmac1022]

@@mamusipipalisajelo5419 Multi purpose. It shows the problem of saying morals are objective and from god and its tests people for unconscious denial if they respond and dont answer the questions but think they did.

[@schlauchmeister234]

@@mamusipipalisajelo5419 "what are these questions for?" - They're for little more than demonstrating that the poster has a flair for category mistakes and faulty comparisons.

[@bradfordbrucker]

The fruit was not poison. It was the fruit of knowledge. Knowing life and death and sin. Before Adam and Eve ate, they were ignorant and obedient to God, after they ate, they called themselves gods and were ashamed of their nakedness and knew they had done wrong. Morality... God forgave them and sent them into the world to suffer and to wait for The One who would redeem them...

[@macmac1022]

@@bradfordbrucker Well, in my question its just a poison fruit. Can you answer the questions or not?

[@ZenWithKen]

Frank says I can't 'know' why something is wrong without a moral arbiter. The thing is, I function in society in a positive way and strive to maximize well being all without this 'know' component. He's trying to sell me something that is meaningless and of no real value. Gods are not required, they simply aren't. Just be a good human.

[@Elioc-ed6wr]

So...source for being a good human? Inevitably, you do have to submit to some moral arbiter, whether that is society, yourself, or some external source. The first two are self-defeating. The third is the most straightforward solution. The biggest problem with "maximizing well-being" is that the heuristic is too nebulous and ill-defined. One person's well-being is not the same as another person's. The well being of one society does not entail the well being of another society, etc. Everyone knows you don't need to be a theist to be a good person. But to be intellectually honest and hold to any "objective" standard of goodness, you cannot be a materialist atheist. That's all.

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

His argument would be more like the reason why you know is because of god, not that you can’t know.

[@tgm2474]

@@Elioc-ed6wr What is "goodness?"

[@somerandom3247]

​@@Elioc-ed6wr What evidence do you have for this god existing, and how have you derived morals from it?

[@joel2628]

What do you mean by "good"?

[@theworld6710]

I think it’s a fundamentally flawed question. Evolution isn’t a belief system. It’s not meant to define good, bad, etc. It’s merely meant to explain how things came to be; and so far has stood the test of time. A dislike of the implications doesn’t detract from it.

[@billythekid7413]

Evolution doesn't explain how anything came to be. God says how things came to be. Don't be deceived

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@billythekid7413god says? Where/when does this god say anything?

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

@@billythekid7413 that’s not what op meant I think. Like if I have a cup of tea and I asked how did this cup come to be, maybe I could answer that god created the universe with water and plants and in that universe there is tea, or maybe I could just say that I boiled a cup of water and added a teabag. These can both be true; it’s like asking on a different level of “how.” Obviously yes evolution does not explain things like god would

[@billythekid7413]

@@lawrenceeason8007 you're being intellectually dishonest.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@billythekid7413 explain how

[@lawrenceeason8007]

Evolution is the explanation for bio diversity on our planet. It’s biology, not moral philosophy. One certainly can derive a moral view if one wants to…but that isn’t its application.

[@chloemartel9927]

Evolution is nothing except a fairytale.

[@UUu-xl3gk]

evolution is actually mythology

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@chloemartel9927says the expert in biology Chloe Martel

[@chloemartel9927]

@@lawrenceeason8007 I see you haven't refuted my statement. Being juvenile is the extent of your abilities.

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

@@chloemartel9927 I think your statement got deleted, what was it?

[@maxhagenauer24]

You can still do what's best for humanity and have right and wrong without a God. There is a standard of objective morality that still exists. Also a biological process kind of can tell you what to do unless you somehow think there is free will and there being some mechanism outside of our biology that controls us.

[@schlauchmeister234]

"You can still do what's best for humanity" - But why should you? "There is a standard of objective morality that still exists." - Which is ... ?

[@maxhagenauer24]

@schlauchmeister234 You should for the same reason anyone says you should do anything regardless of wheather or not God exists, hkw does his existence make it any more or less that you "should" or "shouldn't" do something? How am I supposed to tell you what the standard is for any morality? Do you want the list of everything that is considered right and wrong? Because it's too complicated and I don't know what is considered right and wrong on the list.

[@maxhagenauer24]

@schlauchmeister234 Why "should" I do this ir that if God exists? Does it fix the issue? How do you know that God's standard is the objective one?

[@schlauchmeister234]

@@maxhagenauer24 "You should for the same reason anyone says you should do anything regardless of wheather or not God exists," - The reason theists, or Christian theists, do it is because man is made in the image of God. Therefore, by definition, it CAN'T be the same reason if there is no God. So again, I ask you, why should you, if there is no God? "How am I supposed to tell you what the standard is for any morality?" - You just said there still is a standard. But you have no idea what it is?? "Do you want the list of everything that is considered right and wrong? " - No, I'm asking what the standard is. That's not the same thing.

[@maxhagenauer24]

​@@schlauchmeister234 ​The reason theists, or Christian theists, do it is because man is made in the image of God. Therefore, by definition, it CAN'T be the same reason if there is no God. So again, I ask you, why should you, if there is no God?" That is circular , how do you know that we are made in the imagine of God? Its essentially saying the same thing in already assuming that God exists and created humans, thus it cant be used as an argument for the existence of God. You are the one defining it to say it is different if it is without God. In fact, even if what you are saying is true, it still does not answer why you "should" do this or that. So to answer why I should, its for the same reason theists believe. " You just said there still is a standard. But you have no idea what it is??" Yeah its complicated because it depends on many different factors in the particular situation, can you tell me exactly what Gods standard is if its from God? I don't know how I am suppose to tell you a standard. "No, I'm asking what the standard is. That's not the same thing." Oh that's not the same thing then I have even less clue what exactly you want, can you be smore specific? What on earth is a standard for morality?

[@michaelchurchmcm]

You have to use Paul's checkmate that he used in Romans 7. He went brass tacs and said a spiritually dead man cannot stop lusting. So ask your atheist friend to stop lusting and then to get back to you. He cannot do it because by the time he tried to stop he had already done it. This is why Paul used to the 10th commandment to prove that a spiritual dead Jew could keep fulfill the Law of Moses and needed to be born again. Once born again you have new Human spirit that is as righteous as Jesus' is righteous and from here you can resist the lust that then would be only in the natural mind. This was how Jesus walked. He was tempted in every way yet without sin. You gotta go brass tacs. Dont argue any other morals with them because they can always say "well I am a sinner and I have never committed adultery on my wife". But they have lusted for other women in their heart. And remember by lust it means lust for any sin not just sexual.

[@katamas832]

How is that a checkmate? Many atheists don't hold to what you call "lusting" being wrong in any way. Being attracted to another person is perfectly normal. So is finding some people extremely attractive, so much that it gets your mind going, especially during teenage years.

[@therick363]

None of that is checkmate

[@michaelchurchmcm]

​@@therick363 So keep the 10th and let me know How you did.

[@therick363]

@@michaelchurchmcmwhat?

[@michaelchurchmcm]

10th commandment. A sinner can't stop it. A Christian can and must.

[@GSpotter63]

If your brain says your brain is true then it must be true.... Sounds a bit circular to me.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

So it depends on what you mean. Evolution is biology, but lots of things “evolve”. Yes our morality has evolved and will continue to evolve…but that is separate from evolution.

[@UUu-xl3gk]

Evolution is mythology

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@UUu-xl3gkokay submit your paper for peer review to all the biologists of the world. I’m sure they will read it for its entertainment

[@Dah_J]

The traditional argument from atheists is that our moral intuitions are a result of evolution. That people with the intuition to not murder, steal, rape etc were more likely to survive and reproduce and therefore passed those genes on to future generations. The problem with this as Frank pointed out is that if this were the case, morality is just an illusion. It would simply just be a thought process that just happened to help our species survive, but would have no authority beyond us.

[@cahokia33]

Nothing has evolved just because you learned there's a skill to hit the ball with a bat, or leg, or net, racket. Evolution isn't because we learned to defy the law of gravity with the law of lift. Both laws always existed.

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

I think there's language confusion here. We say cars have evolved over time, but obviously this is not "evolve" in the same meaning of the word. do you mean "Yes our morality has evolved and will continue to evolve (change over time)…but that is separate from (biological) evolution"?

[@lukeanthony8755]

Where is Frank getting his idea that a supposed god is higher than anything biological ? This reasoning is so uninformed and uneducated, , he speaks as if all rapists hang around to raise and educate their offspring ? Really This is one of the worst cases of apologetics I’ve ever seen Anyone who blindly follows this horrible teaching should be deeply ashamed of themselves and question everything they think they know about reality

[@GreatBehoover]

Personification is what all naturalism is based upon. The idea that a DESCRIPTION, nature, can select or do anything is just nuts. Not scientific at all. And...feel free to post the UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that would prive evolution isn't pure mythology. Oh...wait...you CAN'T!

[@frankguetta9529]

@@GreatBehoover I think you’re trying to say that nature can’t select anything. That it can’t consciously choose what to select. Is this correct?

[@TomMichael5678]

​@@frankguetta9529 Hey Cardano, you're NOT implying that nature has a conscious and therefore consciously selects as it deems appropriate, are you?

[@therick363]

@@sterlingfallsproductions3930don’t expect much from the OP. I’ve asked him many times a simple question, politely and respectfully and the complete opposite comes back. He’s got a script

[@therick363]

Would you like to discuss your post like honest respectful adults? I’m happy to present evidence as long as you answer questions back.

[@AP-di6gu]

Certainly not, nor is it good science - strawberries and human beings are not related 😂.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

It is not only good science, it is established science. Worldwide. It is THE explanation for bio diversity on our planet.

[@thehomiedan6378]

You may not want to believe it, but that is is literally the truth. For one, humans and strawberries possess DNA, so we’re already related in that sense as living beings. Also humans share around 60% of our genetic material with strawberries. This objective fact bro whether you want to believe it or not

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@thehomiedan6378facts

[@mamusipipalisajelo5419]

@@lawrenceeason8007 based

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@mamusipipalisajelo5419based on the fact of genetic similarities

[@dustyk103]

Do these realize that every movie villain until the last few years has been an insane tyrant saying that humanity is a virus that must be destroyed?

[@JamesWatson-h4h]

Evolution actually explains why we have the morals we do.

[@chloemartel9927]

Surely you meant the lack of morals.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

​@@chloemartel9927No, it is clearly demonstrable that we have morals.

[@therick363]

@@chloemartel9927considering you show no morals….

[@TomMichael5678]

Hey kiddo, evolution doesn't actually 'explain' anything, people DO. Like you try to at times with certain issues and fail *miserably.* Try again, little narcissistic failure. 😂 *LAUGH MY freaking FACE OFF* 😅

[@TomMichael5678]

​@@therick363 Blathering again, Rick. Good grief, at least get things right. Everyone "shows" their morals, the question is are they virtuous are bad.