Celtic Heroes

All the atheists referred to survival creating morals. If the Jewish were causing trouble for Hitler and others who also believed so, doesn't it increase their survival rate? So this would be the right choice for any Nazi, except many of the Nazi soldiers hesitated and were forced to act in these ways.

In fact, my own grandfather was forced to join the Nazi Army's Aerial force, but he actually ran away. Jumped out the airplane with his parachute, landed somewhere in France, and made his way to where he had relatives outside Germany. He left, and disagreed with racism even though he was born and raised amongst men who hated and influenced him to do like they did.


If survival was key, and we lived according to that, why do we have so many economic flaws that makes millions in debt and poor; why are we peaceful and not violent with others that make our lives harder unknowingly? It's because we have been given the right to be good or bad, and its all your choice. The ultimate gift from God is freedom; the choice to be good or bad.

For example, why is it evil if I kill a little kid that is eating my food while I starve? Doesn't it make my survival rate worst?

Please refer to my completely ignored post:


Say that there is a little kid with a bomb inside his stomach, along with a million dollars, on an aeroplane. From what I understand, what is right and wrong in your opinion through learning is the more survival friendly choice. So I would push off the little kid to save my life and the money, instead of trying to take the bomb out or die trying. Is this the correct choice? It does meet your requirements.If people didn't know what was right or wrong, then fighting only for your survival wouldn't be right or wrong, hence the choice for personal survival; which either helps or does not help another person or thing.

In answer to the original question:

It is not about divine code within us or remnants of a god's command. It really just has to do with mass survival. It is true that time changes and perception change but it is society that picks and chooses the customs that help humanity on a grand scale survive.

There is no point in using events in history to show that human logic and reason can be flawed. We already know this. The idea is that we eventually change as the survival of humanity becomes a priority.

Humanity as a whole, that is. Just like individuals do not evolve but populations do.

Never mind, I'm gonna blow my top if I read any more of this. My anger is not directed at you acebow, or Valrean. I just wanna go back in time and kill hitler before he starts becoming psycho.

Each person is different, so obviously every person's morals are different.

Each person is different, so obviously every person's morals are different.

Of course, but we are talking about how morals were created.

Props to Gandy, while the atheists have been avoiding the main question and posts such as mine. Now I bring up a different point.

First, You cannot group all 'Christians' as Christians. Solembum made some excellent points about it.

On to the Bomb in the kids stomach, I believe as Christians, we'd do the best to save everyone, and attempt to remove the bomb. God has taught us to love all, and as many people show, they do their best to love as many people as possible, and save as many. If I cant remove the bomb, I would push the kid off, saving more lives then possible having them all die. I would then ask The Lord for forgiveness, saying that I did my best and did what I had to to save as many people as possible.

Edit: if there were no people on the plane, I still would've done the same, because the shrapnel of the blown up plane could harm people below.

Each person is different, so obviously every person's morals are different.

Of course, but we are talking about how morals were created.

i answered that

Each person is different, so obviously every person's morals are different.

Of course, but we are talking about how morals were created.

i answered that

How? Telling me that religion or culture gives me a set of morals does not explain where morals came from. As I said, if you pull the survival apple up again, why is it we do things that are right in today's world that put us in danger.



@RedD0gy, yes that's exactly what I would do too. I am a Christian myself, I was just posing the question for atheists, of which none have answered.

P.S There were no other people in the plane

Morals are subjective
They are based on personal experience, culture, and instinct

So then would you say morals are relative to each person?

Yes, my morals are differant than your morals. There will always be societal morals as well though, which differ country to country. But to answer your question, no morals do not come from religion. Religion provides (A) set of morals, but does not create nor set which morals are correct

I am still confused by this. If my teacher at school believes it is wrong to cheat on a test, and I believe it is perfectly fine to cheat on a test, then who is correct? (Disregarding any contracts that I would sign by enrolling in the school) We cannot both be correct. Similarly, if one of us IS correct, then the other must be wrong because we cannot both be correct.

Edited my response.

Well then, my apologies. I will attempt to give a detailed explanation using an example.

Let us start with our ancestors, the apes. I know many of the religious do not accept evolution but bear with me, I am trying to give a complete answer. We can see today how primitive they are to ourselves and their seemingly apparent lack of the ability to imitate and empathises efficiently. The phrase "monkey see, monkey do" is only accurate to the point that an ape will repeat but make no attempt to change the process of how something is done, just so long as whatever benefit is yielded will continue.

It is to such traits that we owe much of our advancement and survival up to this point. We see, we do, we change, and we note the effects. Morals and ethics developed as a way to judge the effect on each other. So, closer to the present, let's say there is a group of people riding bikes in a race. Person A is part of that group and he/she decides that they could take Person B's bike in order to be more efficient. We say it is wrong and perhaps if these are in fact people, they would gang up on Person A and explain that it is simply wrong in our society. However, let's assume this is a group of people who have yet to encounter the concept of stealing and now that the group has observed such act only to follow the human trait of imitation.

All of them now start to steal each other's bike's and some even hurt others or destroy each other's bikes just to get ahead in the race. But then they realised, they were all moving slower than ever to the finish line and in fact do not seem to be moving at all. With this realisation, they decide that such behaviour is incorrect and only serves to hinder the entire group. The act of stealing is wrong because we know that if everyone were to do it, the advancement of humanity will stop and even regress.

It is a collection of such instances throughout history that have developed our morals as a way to safeguard each other and overall survival of all humans. We see violence today but people are still learning and eventually we will notice that such violent actions only serve to slow everyone down. Someone used hitler as an example and, whilst his actions were horrendous, we all learned a lesson. We have seen the effect of such hatred towards fellow humans and empathise with what the victims went through. Through this understanding of the effect, we can be almost certain that no one will attempt to initiate him ever again.

So yes, morals and ethics are entirely about mass survival. They are not derived from religion and the only irregularity we see is the natural process of one's personal interpretation of an event and judgement on if it will harm society or not.

Edit: I am so using this on my EE... Do not be surprised if I delete various parts soon... Random, I know.