Search results

Cooperating with others and adopting the golden rule as moral standards, may directly benefit and improve evolutionary survival. Apparently it does. It may not. Natural selection is the outcome. Thanks for the exchange :)

My point being species on the whole do group. Some members of the species don't. The overall reason they do is evolutionary in that there are clear survival advantages and benefits. The loner is not denied or restricted or advantaged in the natural evolutionary capacity to hold a moral code...

That sounds.... and looks ....more like religion than anything else.

Should it have been individual reliance without any need for community that was overwhelmingly beneficial to survival, then people wouldn't be living in communities. Everyone would be on their own. Most aren't. Thing is both work to a degree, but to enhance survival, social /communal...

...and those evolutionary gifts just keep on givin'

I'd say it'll be by sulk.

"Okay"

I largely agree, just that it is not only natural for those who seek it. For those who don't, that is natural too. Neither is unnatural. Which is moral and which is not is justified by logical reasoning, I agree with you there too. But remember, logic too emerges through natural evolutionary...

I'd be glad to elaborate , but first can we be clear on what you mean by using quotation marks around the words "natural" and "moral behavior"? Are you suggesting they don't have specific meanings in this context? Should that be the case, why no quotations around "logic". Also you say, "moral...

Biology / Evolutionary biology / Sociobiology Scientific explanation for natural moral behavior and capacity for moral judgment. In contrast to the separate issue of esoteric philosophical justifications, or the untenable theodicy disparate groups and societies tend to use in part as...

"Evolutionary biology explains morality"... I said that. "Nature determines what is Right and Wrong" .... I didn't say that. "Instead they [Atheists] say Nature determines what is Right and Wrong like it's a matter of fact."...I didn't say that. Naturally, I'm not surprised you are confused...

It is a scientific question and there is a scientific answer and a scientific explanation. You obviously don't like that answer so what are you doing but ignoring the answer and pretending one wasn't given. Who has said "Nature determines what is Right and Wrong" except you? No one has. As a...

It's more like being contradictory than curious when you start out by assuming the natural world is fundamentally supernatural.

Oh shit piezoe, now you know your agw argument was crap.

Yeah sure, missing words out of stuff doesn't change meaning context or concepts.:p

It doesn't say God it says Nature's God It doesn't say Creator it says their Creator So how come you are highlighting single words without their modifiers above, then start to highlight both in divine Providence and not just divine or Providence :D :D I already told you a dozen times, the...

Still says nature's god and still says their creator. Not god, on its own, without a modifier. No matter how many time you two goofs repeat yourselves it won't re-write the way you want :D

Jefferson got this dead right. Those independent from kings and government but not from gods, are being less than free.