If man is merely the product of mutations in animals, rather than the special creation of God, morality is just an abstract concept, with no standard, or guidelines of behavior, from an authoritative source.
Morality is only a concept when one is free to decide, otherwise one is simply obeying a superior. A good example are criminals, while what a person does may be illegal (and thus criminal) it may also be morally correct.
For theists with a strict code of behavior there is only law, not morality.
In any case, even assuming theist doctrine is morality, there is no sense that because there is no one standard morality from an authority, morality flies out the window. At least there is no logic to it.
There are some good reasons for humans to speculate on and adopt moral codes, for example personal and social harmony and improvement. You may not like practical reasons for adopting moral codes, but they are there.
My question to you is if you found out definitively tomorrow that there was no God, would
you suddenly go berzerk?
If one were to use the 2 laws that Jesus gave, there would be a lot less robbing, torturing and killing.
This didn't answer my question. If robbing, torturing, and killing are measures of immorality then once again I point out to historical fact that times of following religious law (God as highest authority) have been equal or more immoral than recent times.
If every animal is just the product of random mutations {including man}, doesn't that make our existence just a random event in the universe with no meaning? The human race and everything it accomplishes, no more meaningful than a petri dish of bacteria.
Our existence would have come about randomly, yes. That does not however remove one iota of meaning. We give meaning to our lives, not the universe.
I already gave you the reason, but that's unsubstantiated. It's a conclusion I've drawn.
Uhhhh, the ToE's been around for more than 45 years. It might also be mentioned that our knowledge (recording of stats) of suicide has improved so that could be part of growing numbers.
Regardless, you seem to be jumping to a pretty far fetched conclusion, especially as you gave no stats regarding ToE that might provide a connection. My own theory would have to do with increased pressure on young people.
Over 40 million abortions since 1973, most {99%} of them because it's inconvenient for the mother to bear the child. Many abortions performed at a stage when the baby is capable of survival outside the womb. Have you ever read a detailed description of a partial birth abortion? Often performed in the last month of pregnancy, if that isn't callous indifference to life, I don't know what is.
This is not consistent with info provided by earlier, by a person against abortion none the less. I'm not going to call you a liar, but this looks pulled out of a hat to me.
Again, the ToE was before 1973, and interestingly enough makes no claims that could reflect on abortion. I think what you want to look at is developmental biology, that deals with understanding what is growing inside a pregnant woman.
Frankly, whether the ToE was correct or not, if human procreation was as it used to be believed it was (tiny fully developed people simply growing larger) then I'd probably be against abortion. Its developmental biology which showed we are not dealing with "people" when we look at zygotes and fetuses, not the ToE.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2