The idea that ‘evolution’ accounts for our inclination to be moral creatures is a subjective assertion.
Why? It has loads of evidence to back it up. So why do you say it's a subjective assertion? Oh well, I'm sure you'll have a reasonable answer later on. Let's look.
It seems to be based on a presupposition that since evolution is true then surely it can account for why we make decisions about ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’
Ahhhh, it seems
. Well that's good enough for me. BS says that it seems that way. Given his vast education and knowledge of........ummmm.....uhhhh......well I'm sure he's knowledgeable about something, but clearly it must be true.
First, an evolutionary explanation has not been proven scientifically and, secondly, it is the only non-theist argument that subscribes to subjectivity as a means for explaining anything.
There's lots of evidence. How does it not prove anything? An assertion does not mean anything, BS.
This, in itself, seems contradictory to the whole notion that unless something can be tested and verified as true, it is just a guess….something us theists are often criticized for doing.
BS' typical idiotic claims of a double standard when he does not even know the subject he is talking about.
Where morals come from, is fact that can be understood and ascertained by scientific study. We can gather data and test the conclusions because we can see how humans form their morals and how they apply them. These things can be tested.What those morals are
is a subjective thing that cannot be verified scientifically, because they only exist in the mind.
Are you done now?
1. If ‘tribal’ survival was enhanced by morality, the why do we find that it is often the case members of a specific group will often disagree with other members of the same group?
Becasue human beings are individuals and not robots? Because morals change overtime to reflect new changes?Because morality is fucking subjective, dipshit!
Seriously, BS. You just asked why,if morals are subjective, not everyone agrees with the morality of their group. Do you actually listen to yourself?
2. The inclination to care for others would place a burden on that individual and jeopardize that individual’s chance of survival. There may be an argument pertaining to ‘relatives’ but outside of that, there is no logical conclusion to be drawn.
Empathy for one thing. We know what pain feels like and don't wish to see others suffer. There's reciprocation, we may need to the same assisstance someday. There's the fact that the person might be contributing aid in some way. Such as someone who was too elderly or sickly to go on the hunt staying behind and teaching/watching the children and in turn being taken care of.
You really can't think of one good reason why you would help out another human being if god didn't tell you to do it, can you? That's what I meant about what a terrible person you reveal yourself to be.
3. An ‘ought’ implies forethought that cannot be explained when you factor in the trait of ‘selfishness.’ I ‘ought’ not be selfish because it is beneficial for the group which is beneficial for me. But, if it is beneficial for me, then I am being selfish.
Our basic impulses are selfish. However we have higher impulses as well, that we've developed as our brains have. Such as the aforementioned empathy.
Also this doesn't fly since your view of morality is equally selfish, if not outright amoral.
I could go on with many more questions but these are just a few that lack a solid explanation. Again, evolution has thus far failed to account for ‘morality’….which, in combination with other arguments that favor the existence of the God of the Bible, leads to my belief that He exists.
They don't lack explanation. You just didn't bother to think about them. There's a difference. Don't assume that your willing lack of intellect is universal.
As I pointed out with number 2. The fact that you asked that question means that you failed to think of one single reason to actually help another being without a command from god. I gave you three just off the top of my head. Not to mention that these questions have been asked by you before, and answered by others before, and the answers ignored by you before.
Bringing up the same arguments that were stupid back then doesn't make them any smarter now.