John W Redelfs wrote: > > My atheist father used to tell me that "might makes right" is a bad > philosophy? Why? Unless there is a God who is against it, why > would that philosophy be any better or worse than any other? Upon > what do atheists base their morality? I've never been able to > understand this. If selection of the species is determined by > survival of the fittest, isn't "might" the ultimate good, > biologically speaking? The strong are just doing nature a favor by > rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to > reproduce. Following this line of reasoning, would not killing > babies be one of the "moral" things a person could do? That way > only the babies of the strongest parents would be able to survive, > and that would improve the bloodline, isn't that so? > I think you should be careful to define _what_ are the goals, so that you can define what is "good" and what is "evil". If the goal is the long-range survival of intelligence and diversity, or even of diversity of intelligence, then killing weak babies is "evil".
But it requires too much thinking to conclude that - and atheists are no smarter than fundamentalist theists, and will be satisfied with short-range egoistical goals. Short-term egoistical goals for theists mean "do good or God will punish you". Short-term egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder. Alberto Monteiro _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
