Bill Maher and Brian Levin Discuss Islam

[jj3jordan 2,056]

I see a lot of adaptation, something creationists know exists and do not deny. There are also references to adaptation, best explanation available, or no explanation at all. A finch with a small beak is still a finch. And they picked an animal with both live births and eggs, and said it was changing from one to the other? What about animals with both sex organs, are they transitioning also? None of these examples support evolutionary theory. All it said was actual speciation takes too long so we don't have examples.

Faith is belief in things unseen or unproven. My faith in God is easy since I see Him in all life everyday. Your faith in evolution is very similar, but you have made the jump from unproven unseen species change to fact. That is simply not the case.

Don't know if you are addressing this to me, but if so, just look at my responses to Weegle. Apparently, they are as applicable to you as him.

Oh, I forgot to ask: What makes you so certain evolution is not "God's plan"?

If you want to decipher God's plan, just read the Bible. I don't feel the need to thumb my nose at the Bible, God's Holy Word. If you think you are smarter than God, fine. I'm not. I am satisfied to read and believe the Bible as written.

[homersapien 11,393]

Understanding Micro Evolution hardly explains how something sprang from nothing; how chemicals came together to order themselves, create proteins and amino acids, learn to process energy, learn to store information and replicate.; how species suddenly appear;....

Yeah, it's enough to make one believe God did it, isn't it?

BTW, how exactly, did God do it?

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Understanding Micro Evolution hardly explains how something sprang from nothing; how chemicals came together to order themselves, create proteins and amino acids, learn to process energy, learn to store information and replicate.; how species suddenly appear;....

Yeah, it's enough to make one believe God did it, isn't it?

BTW, how exactly, did God do it?

7 days. Can't you read?

[homersapien 11,393]

how species suddenly appear; fully formed;

Science does not say that.

the lack of transitional species..

The scientific record is full of "transitional" species (as if that term was meaningful, since pretty much all species are, by definition, "transitional") including many for Homo sapiens.

etc., .I could go on....

Well I suppose you could go on citing erroneous information....

using some examples of micro evolution to infer the origin of the cosmos or life on this planet (or any other)doesn't even make sense.

Who exactly, suggested one should infer the origin of the universe from observations of microbial evolution?

Neither Darwin; nor any other biologist to date, has put together a plausible case for a "randomly" created universe

I am not aware of any scientist that has seriously proposed that the universe was created "randomly". However, random change is a part of evolutionary theory.

....only the laws that explain how how an already created and miraculous universe operates.

So who has claimed otherwise (as a scientific claim)?

Titan said it very well...They are not the same. Explaining what a protein does (science); is not the same as explaining how a protein came into being.

No, but they are both equally valid scientific questions which have been explored.

If you don't have a belief in how it all started...just say so...

OK, I say so.

but you can't (logically at least) use an unrelated, partially proven theory to refute someones belief in intelligent design or a God designed existence.

You are wrong. A scientifically valid explanation (such as evolution) may not necessarily rule out God's involvement but it clearly shows how things occurred as a natural process. So called "intelligent design" is a a rather pitiful (IMO) effort to assign a supernatural explanation for things that can be explained by natural evolution. "ID" is political and religious. It is not science. It's basis is applying supernatural reasons for any gaps in the existing evidence base. Many of the examples used by proponents of ID are simply false to begin with.

And it doesn't follow that because one does believe in Intelligent Design or a God Designed existence; that they don't believe in science or evolution....

I grant you someone can believe in evolution and still believe in God (see the Catholic Church). But obviously , they cannot also believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.

And as I said, the theory of "Intelligent Design" is not really a scientific theory at all (after all, if you believe God did something, how do you do you falsify it). ID is a religion-motivated scam. One cannot accept evolution and ID at the same time.

micro evolution is pretty easy to see...that doesn't mean it explains our species or the universes existence.

No one claimed that it did. I brought it up solely as an exception to the rule that speciation takes a long time. That is true for most things, less so for microbes.

And before you scream "charlatan, evolution, partially proven?"...yes, partially proven by Darwin's own admission.

Maybe Darwin felt it was only partially proven, which was an accurate statement at the time. But 154 years later, there is no scientific doubt about the general validity of the theory. The only thing being debated now are the details.

It's no different than Einstein's theories that work well in some cases and are just wrong in others (Gravity; but not in the Quantum space)...

While various versions of physics have shown not to be universal, that is not the case with evolution. Not to say it can't happen, it just hasn't.

Darwin was bright..he just made too many leaps of faith (no pun intended) with his observations to what he couldn't observe.

First, one cannot observe what can't be observed so I think you are referring to predictions. The fact is, many if not most of Darwin's predictions have been correct. On of the important characteristics of a valid scientific theory is that it is predictive. That has certainly been the case with evolution, which has been very predictive.

[homersapien 11,393]

I see a lot of adaptation, something creationists know exists and do not deny. There are also references to adaptation, best explanation available, or no explanation at all. A finch with a small beak is still a finch. And they picked an animal with both live births and eggs, and said it was changing from one to the other? What about animals with both sex organs, are they transitioning also? None of these examples support evolutionary theory. All it said was actual speciation takes too long so we don't have examples.

Faith is belief in things unseen or unproven. My faith in God is easy since I see Him in all life everyday. Your faith in evolution is very similar, but you have made the jump from unproven unseen species change to fact. That is simply not the case.

Don't know if you are addressing this to me, but if so, just look at my responses to Weegle. Apparently, they are as applicable to you as him.

Oh, I forgot to ask: What makes you so certain evolution is not "God's plan"?

If you want to decipher God's plan, just read the Bible. I don't feel the need to thumb my nose at the Bible, God's Holy Word. If you think you are smarter than God, fine. I'm not. I am satisfied to read and believe the Bible as written.

I have no absolutely no doubt about that.

[homersapien 11,393]

Understanding Micro Evolution hardly explains how something sprang from nothing; how chemicals came together to order themselves, create proteins and amino acids, learn to process energy, learn to store information and replicate.; how species suddenly appear;....

Yeah, it's enough to make one believe God did it, isn't it?

BTW, how exactly, did God do it?

7 days. Can't you read?

Not the original Hebrew, or was it Greek?

[DKW 86 7,431]

You know, somewhere a long time ago, we debated this very issue.

Essentially those that that pray and see astounding things happen thru praying are seeing what they believe to be a 1-1 correlation.

They see a God that is loving and cares for us and is THE ultimate word in "Justice" in a crazy world.

The Atheist view is a lot harder to defend. I present you with the fact that YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN ATHEISM.

1. If you believe in the crap that is Darwinism, that the fittest survive. The next step is...

2. Neitzscheanism: The fittest SHOULD survive, that the survival of the fittest is BEST for everyone and that would make sense, IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVED THAT. It is my contention that you really dont.

Let's see if you really do believe it.

Answer these questions:

Why do good?

Why do good to another human?

Why do good in business?

Why do you not actually engage in and encourage others to activities that would actually show and demonstrate that you believe in "Survival of the Fittest.?"

What you will find is some namby pamby BS answer that will sound something like: "Well, if i dont act "good" or do "good" then society will punish me..."

That is THE SINGLE BIGGEST COPEOUT POSITION EVER PUT FORTH BY MAN.

If you actually believe that there is no god. Then what the hell, act like it.

If you actually believe the things you have shown your ass with on here saying, then PLEASE DEMONSTATE that you have the nerve and the gall to stand up to Judeao-Christian norms of society and act like what you say you believe.

If there is no god, then act like it. Lead your life in such a way where you are <NOT> cowed by the rest of us lesser beings. Societal norms are just an imposition on your ultimately living like you say you should. If the concept of god is just us imposing our weaker than your glorious intellect ways upon you, please feel free to form up a group and go and lead your life like you say you believe.

If there is no god:

Live like it.

Take what you want from the rest of us and live that "Survival of the Fittest" thing.

Get a big gun and live like a King.

Form up a new civilization.

Thow off the chains of us lesser beings.

Dont give me any of this "we as a society have agreed to live this way bs."

Look, we have debated this ad nauseum here.

At the end of the day, i fully believe that your position is 100% total BS.

If you actually believe one word of this crapola you would not be here on a message board.

You would be out living your life on your terms. You dont because you KNOW that your life is complete BS.

You are just a troll on a message board slinging crap against the wall to see what sticks....GOTCHA.

[AUDub 11,158]

You know, somewhere a long time ago, we debated this very issue.

Essentially those that that pray and see astounding things happen thru praying are seeing what they believe to be a 1-1 correlation.

They see a God that is loving and cares for us and is THE ultimate word in "Justice" in a crazy world.

The Atheist view is a lot harder to defend. I present you with the fact that YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN ATHEISM.

1. If you believe in the crap that is Darwinism, that the fittest survive. The next step is...

2. Neitzscheanism: The fittest SHOULD survive, that the survival of the fittest is BEST for everyone and that would make sense, IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVED THAT. It is my contention that you really dont.

Let's see if you really do believe it.

Answer these questions:

Why do good?

Why do good to another human?

Why do good in business?

Why do you not actually engage in and encourage others to activities that would actually show and demonstrate that you believe in "Survival of the Fittest.?"

What you will find is some namby pamby BS answer that will sound something like: "Well, if i dont act "good" or do "good" then society will punish me..."

That is THE SINGLE BIGGEST COPEOUT POSITION EVER PUT FORTH BY MAN.

If you actually believe that there is no god. Then what the hell, act like it.

If you actually believe the things you have shown your ass with on here saying, then PLEASE DEMONSTATE that you have the nerve and the gall to stand up to Judeao-Christian norms of society and act like what you say you believe.

If there is no god, then act like it. Lead your life in such a way where you are cowed by the rest of us lesser beings. Societal norms are just an imposition on your ultimately living like you say you should. If the concept of god is just us imposing our weaker than your glorious intellect ways upon you, please feel free to form up a group and go and lead your life like you say you believe.

If there is no god:

Live like it.

Take what you want from the rest of us and live that "Survival of the Fittest" thing.

Get a big gun and live like a King.

Form up a new civilization.

Thow off the chains of us lesser beings.

Dont give me any of this "we as a society have agreed to live this way bs."

Look, we have debated this ad nauseum here.

At the end of the day, i fully believe that your position is 100% total BS.

If you actually believe one word of this crapola you would not be here on a message board.

You would be out living your life on your terms. You dont because you KNOW that your life is complete BS.

You are just a troll on a message board slinging crap against the wall to see what sticks....GOTCHA.

I'm sorry, DKW. You're not making any sense. As a former self-proclaimed atheist myself, I can tell you that morality, decency, understanding, and love for your fellow man are not traits exclusive to the religious. That's a ridiculous notion that only shows your lack of understanding toward atheists.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I'm sorry, DKW. You're not making any sense. As a former self-proclaimed atheist myself, I can tell you that morality, decency, understanding, and love for your fellow man are not traits exclusive to the religious. That's a ridiculous notion that only shows your lack of understanding toward atheists.

I don't think I read that DKW was asserting that morality and so on don't exist among atheists. It is evident that it does from just the people I've known in my life. The question for me (and him I presume) would be, from where is that morality derived? Is it anchored in anything objective? If you truly believe that the universe is just a fortunate (for us) cosmic accident of enough time and the right collision of whatever to somehow result in all that we observe, from where do you get the concept of "ought" or "should"? How do you know that what you say is "good" is actually good and what is "evil" is actually evil?

[Weegle777 78]

Awwwww!!!! Taking your ball and going home now?

No. I just recognize a fool's errand when presented with one.

Hmmmmm. Nice cop out O' brilliant mind. Ha! Ha!

[Weegle777 78]

Natural selection. Hmmmmmm.... Based on moths landing on a tree in the industrialized regions. Trees were black, black moths escaped predators, white moths didnt. Hardly scientific. It's just an obvious deduction. If this is what Darwin brought forth, and you believe this was a brilliant observance, then something is inherently hilarious in that.

[AUDub 11,158]

I'm sorry, DKW. You're not making any sense. As a former self-proclaimed atheist myself, I can tell you that morality, decency, understanding, and love for your fellow man are not traits exclusive to the religious. That's a ridiculous notion that only shows your lack of understanding toward atheists.

I don't think I read that DKW was asserting that morality and so on don't exist among atheists. It is evident that it does from just the people I've known in my life. The question for me (and him I presume) would be, from where is that morality derived? Is it anchored in anything objective? If you truly believe that the universe is just a fortunate (for us) cosmic accident of enough time and the right collision of whatever to somehow result in all that we observe, from where do you get the concept of "ought" or "should"? How do you know that what you say is "good" is actually good and what is "evil" is actually evil?

Is it not fair to think these concepts could be self-determined? That the anchor could be the determined by individual in question and a moral compass of his own design? What if the happiness and suffering of other humans matters enough to the individual in question that they would seek to decrease the suffering of others just as a matter of course? I believe we form a society to protect ourselves and each other and ward off "survival of the fittest."

I don't believe much of what DKW implied was valid. His tone, in particular the last sentence, lead me to believe he wasn't entering this discussion in good faith. I'm sorry, to both you and he, if you feel I misunderstood him.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Is it not fair to think these concepts could be self-determined? That the anchor could be the determined by individual in question and a moral compass of his own design?

I guess it's fair to think of them in any way one wishes to. But obviously everyone's moral compass isn't pointing to the same "true north." Why is your moral compass the one a society should follow vs someone else's?

What if the happiness and suffering of other humans matters enough to the individual in question that they would seek to decrease the suffering of others just as a matter of course?

How do you decide that decreasing suffering is an unqualified good or that it's a good that supercedes other "goods"? In other words, how do you know that this is truly a "good" end rather than just one of many personal preferences?

I believe we form a society to protect ourselves and each other and ward off "survival of the fittest."

How do we know in the grand scheme of things that our survival is a good to be aimed for? What if our extinction would be better on a grand scale? Should we work toward that instead?

[AUDub 11,158]

I guess it's fair to think of them in any way one wishes to. But obviously everyone's moral compass isn't pointing to the same "true north." Why is your moral compass the one a society should follow vs someone else's?

I don't think it matters that they're not all pointing at "true north." Despite those differences, aren't all of these variations of minute enough that the aggregated concept of our morality, a requirement of a civilized society and the basis for laws, can still be determined by our humanity alone?

How do you decide that decreasing suffering is an unqualified good or that it's a good that supercedes other "goods"? In other words, how do you know that this is truly a "good" end rather than just one of many personal preferences?

I really don't know how to answer that. I suppose it has to do with my upbringing and my base nature. Speaking for myself, an altruistic action is an inherently good action.

How do we know in the grand scheme of things that our survival is a good to be aimed for? What if our extinction would be better on a grand scale? Should we work toward that instead?

Isn't the survival of our race our very nature and inherently good from a normal human perspective? We're social beings, after all. Why should the few sociopaths among us be able to dictate our eventual fate?

Thank you for this instructive discussion, by the way.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I don't think it matters that they're not all pointing at "true north." Despite those differences, aren't all of these variations of minute enough that the aggregated concept of our morality, a requirement of a civilized society and the basis for laws, can still be determined by our humanity alone?

Some of the variations are quite wide, from culture to culture, from era to era.

I really don't know how to answer that. I suppose it has to do with my upbringing and my base nature. Speaking for myself, an altruistic action is an inherently good action.

What I'm getting at is that what you're calling "good" or "altruistic" isn't rooted in anything other than your opinion. There's nothing inherent in your position that makes it any different or better than "might makes right."

]Isn't the survival of our race our very nature and inherently good from a normal human perspective?

If you assume that the human perspective somehow inherently should take precedence over other perspectives. To what would you reference to show this should be the case?

We're social beings, after all. Why should the few sociopaths among us be able to dictate our eventual fate?

Why shouldn't they? Who or what says they're wrong?

[homersapien 11,393]

You know, somewhere a long time ago, we debated this very issue.

Essentially those that that pray and see astounding things happen thru praying are seeing what they believe to be a 1-1 correlation.

They see a God that is loving and cares for us and is THE ultimate word in "Justice" in a crazy world.

The Atheist view is a lot harder to defend. I present you with the fact that YOU DO NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN ATHEISM.

1. If you believe in the crap that is Darwinism, that the fittest survive. The next step is...

2. Neitzscheanism: The fittest SHOULD survive, that the survival of the fittest is BEST for everyone and that would make sense, IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVED THAT. It is my contention that you really dont.

Let's see if you really do believe it.

Answer these questions:

Why do good?

Why do good to another human?

Why do good in business?

Why do you not actually engage in and encourage others to activities that would actually show and demonstrate that you believe in "Survival of the Fittest.?"

What you will find is some namby pamby BS answer that will sound something like: "Well, if i dont act "good" or do "good" then society will punish me..."

That is THE SINGLE BIGGEST COPEOUT POSITION EVER PUT FORTH BY MAN.

If you actually believe that there is no god. Then what the hell, act like it.

If you actually believe the things you have shown your ass with on here saying, then PLEASE DEMONSTATE that you have the nerve and the gall to stand up to Judeao-Christian norms of society and act like what you say you believe.

If there is no god, then act like it. Lead your life in such a way where you are cowed by the rest of us lesser beings. Societal norms are just an imposition on your ultimately living like you say you should. If the concept of god is just us imposing our weaker than your glorious intellect ways upon you, please feel free to form up a group and go and lead your life like you say you believe.

If there is no god:

Live like it.

Take what you want from the rest of us and live that "Survival of the Fittest" thing.

Get a big gun and live like a King.

Form up a new civilization.

Thow off the chains of us lesser beings.

Dont give me any of this "we as a society have agreed to live this way bs."

Look, we have debated this ad nauseum here.

At the end of the day, i fully believe that your position is 100% total BS.

If you actually believe one word of this crapola you would not be here on a message board.

You would be out living your life on your terms. You dont because you KNOW that your life is complete BS.

You are just a troll on a message board slinging crap against the wall to see what sticks....GOTCHA.

Are you addressing that to anyone or just venting?

[homersapien 11,393]

Natural selection. Hmmmmmm.... Based on moths landing on a tree in the industrialized regions. Trees were black, black moths escaped predators, white moths didnt. Hardly scientific. It's just an obvious deduction. If this is what Darwin brought forth, and you believe this was a brilliant observance, then something is inherently hilarious in that.

Please don't tell anyone you attended Auburn University when you are discussing how "hilarious" Darwin's theories are.

[homersapien 11,393]

I'm sorry, DKW. You're not making any sense. As a former self-proclaimed atheist myself, I can tell you that morality, decency, understanding, and love for your fellow man are not traits exclusive to the religious. That's a ridiculous notion that only shows your lack of understanding toward atheists.

I don't think I read that DKW was asserting that morality and so on don't exist among atheists. It is evident that it does from just the people I've known in my life. The question for me (and him I presume) would be, from where is that morality derived? Is it anchored in anything objective? If you truly believe that the universe is just a fortunate (for us) cosmic accident of enough time and the right collision of whatever to somehow result in all that we observe, from where do you get the concept of "ought" or "should"? How do you know that what you say is "good" is actually good and what is "evil" is actually evil?

Is it not fair to think these concepts could be self-determined? That the anchor could be the determined by individual in question and a moral compass of his own design? What if the happiness and suffering of other humans matters enough to the individual in question that they would seek to decrease the suffering of others just as a matter of course? I believe we form a society to protect ourselves and each other and ward off "survival of the fittest."

I don't believe much of what DKW implied was valid. His tone, in particular the last sentence, lead me to believe he wasn't entering this discussion in good faith. I'm sorry, to both you and he, if you feel I misunderstood him.

Seriously. I don't understand how people can insist the concept of moral values and compassion must arise from a particular religious faith.

First, they are universal human values regardless of culture or specific religious beliefs.

Secondly, it is certainly not difficult to imagine that as people evolved as social groups, such traits emerged as a beneficial selective advantage.

Thirdly, there is a large and growing body of scientific research demonstrating practices such as altruism serving as a selective advantage of other social animals, including insects.

The idea that we were handed a set of rules by some authority and if you don't believe that, you have no interest in observing those rules is demonstrably false by simple observation.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Seriously. I don't understand how people can insist the concept of moral values and compassion must arise from a particular religious faith.

First, they are universal human values regardless of culture or specific religious beliefs.

They are? Some cultures used to sacrifice innocent children or virgin women on beds of fire to appease their gods. At various times in history people didn't just own slaves, but believed they were justified in treating them horribly.

So far, you're merely describing things that seems to just be, not why they ought to be that way.

Secondly, it is certainly not difficult to imagine that as people evolved as social groups, such traits emerged as a beneficial selective advantage.

So right and wrong isn't really "right" and "wrong", it's merely things which certain groups deemed to be beneficial to them?

Thirdly, there is a large and growing body of scientific research demonstrating practices such as altruism serving as a selective advantage of other social animals, including insects.

This still doesn't account for why altruism should be followed. Just that for some beings or in some situations, it increases chances of survival...another thing that hasn't been accounted for as to why it is the best end we should strive for.

The idea that we were handed a set of rules by some authority and if you don't believe that, you have no interest in observing those rules is demonstrably false by simple observation.

I didn't say you have no interest in observing them. In fact, I said quite the opposite.

[Weegle777 78]

Natural selection. Hmmmmmm.... Based on moths landing on a tree in the industrialized regions. Trees were black, black moths escaped predators, white moths didnt. Hardly scientific. It's just an obvious deduction. If this is what Darwin brought forth, and you believe this was a brilliant observance, then something is inherently hilarious in that.

Please don't tell anyone you attended Auburn University when you are discussing how "hilarious" Darwin's theories are. :no:/>

And PLEASE don't tell anyone you actually attended AU when talking about how relevant you think they are. It's laughable. Still waiting on some examples. If you think the moth example is brilliant, then good grief you are not very polished.

[AUDub 11,158]

Some of the variations are quite wide, from culture to culture, from era to era.

I agree with this. Different civilizations certainly have very protean ideas of normalcy. Within our own the variation isn't very broad, but this is a good point.

What I'm getting at is that what you're calling "good" or "altruistic" isn't rooted in anything other than your opinion. There's nothing inherent in your position that makes it any different or better than "might makes right."

Isn't there? What about the compass of civilization at large? Wouldn't what we consider right, wrong, morally ambiguous, or even the concept of "natural rights" ultimately be fictional constructs of human invention brought about by our unique ability to think logically and show empathy to others?

If you assume that the human perspective somehow inherently should take precedence over other perspectives. To what would you reference to show this should be the case?

We're human. Reason enough for myself and most virtuous atheists, I suppose.

Why shouldn't they? Who or what says they're wrong?

Society at large, I would guess.

Sorry, I'm new to philosophy, so I'm fishing a bit. Try to bear with me. ;-)

[jj3jordan 2,056]

So now insects have values. Amazing, and YOU wonder how WE graduated from AU?

[homersapien 11,393]

Seriously. I don't understand how people can insist the concept of moral values and compassion must arise from a particular religious faith.

First, they are universal human values regardless of culture or specific religious beliefs.

They are? Some cultures used to sacrifice innocent children or virgin women on beds of fire to appease their gods. At various times in history people didn't just own slaves, but believed they were justified in treating them horribly.

And how are those cultures fairing today? Are they growing/expanding or receding?

So far, you're merely describing things that seems to just be, not why they ought to be that way.

Sorry. I don't really get that. Anyone who observes traditional rules of behavior feels they are doing what they "ought" to be doing by definition.

Secondly, it is certainly not difficult to imagine that as people evolved as social groups, such traits emerged as a beneficial selective advantage.

So right and wrong isn't really "right" and "wrong", it's merely things which certain groups deemed to be beneficial to them?

Again, this is hard for me to understand. The terms "right" and "wrong" are simply terms humans use to differentiate appropriate behavior (which they have learned culturally) from inappropriate behavior.

Thirdly, there is a large and growing body of scientific research demonstrating practices such as altruism serving as a selective advantage of other social animals, including insects.

This still doesn't account for why altruism should be followed. Just that for some beings or in some situations, it increases chances of survival...another thing that hasn't been accounted for as to why it is the best end we should strive for.

Of course is does (well to be more accurate, it explains why altruism exists). Altruism presents a selective advantage to those cultures who have developed the practice. That's all the reason that is needed.

The idea that we were handed a set of rules by some authority and if you don't believe that, you have no interest in observing those rules is demonstrably false by simple observation.

I didn't say you have no interest in observing them. In fact, I said quite the opposite.

Sorry but I didn't mean you specifically. I was referring to the often heard argument that there can be no morals without a religious code to define them. I apologize of giving the impression you felt that way.

[homersapien 11,393]

So now insects have values. Amazing, and YOU wonder how WE graduated from AU?

I didn't say that. I said many social insects practice altruism, which provides a naturalistic example of the practice in life forms even more primitive than man. (Of course, you can believe that they got marching orders inscribed on tiny little tablets direct from their ant God if you prefer.)

And yes, I DO wonder how some of the opinions expressed on this form could emanate from Auburn graduates, or for that matter, graduates from any University (except maybe Liberty).

What was your degree in?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Isn't there? What about the compass of civilization at large? Wouldn't what we consider right, wrong, morally ambiguous, or even the concept of "natural rights" ultimately be fictional constructs of human invention brought about by our unique ability to think logically and show empathy to others?

This is sort of like using a word in its own definition. It's also heavily dependent upon a group of people who supposedly constructed morality out of a "survival of the fittest" mindset, when what is considered truly "good" or altruistic usually asks the exact opposite of them.

We're human. Reason enough for myself and most virtuous atheists, I suppose.

So the human perspective is best because we're human? Is there nothing outside of ourselves we can anchor that belief in?

Society at large, I would guess.

What about this doesn't just end up as "might makes right?" Whoever has the power makes the rules. The rules aren't inherently good or better than anyone else's rules, they just have the power to enforce theirs. If things change and enough people can wrest the power from the former group, then their rules become what's "right." So "right" really is devoid of meaning...at least the meaning that we seem to believe that it has. It's just merely an expression of whatever preferences those in power at the moment have and can change on a whim.