There are two historic figures who discuss how human life was created and from that discussion, draw conclusions on how we are to live.
One, claims that we are created in the image of God, but flawed by our own selfish desires, and therefore must seek repentence and act against those desires. His advice tells us that it is better to love our neighbor than ourselves.
The other, claims that we are descended from apes. Since there is no creator, there is no basis for morality beyond a human construct. The concept of "survival of the fittest" tells us that survival is our primary driving force and that leads to the exact opposite conclusion "it is better to love ourselves than our neighbors".
One approach, if followed leads to a human race that evolves into a world of peace. The other leads to a human race that evolves into destruction.
Ironic, eh?
No, evolution does not tell us one way or the other how to behave. Nice try though.
Actually, He told to love our neighbors as much as we love ourselves.
I see you aren't afraid to misquote God. (See my profile page -at the bottom- for the correct quote)
Faulty premises can lead to faulty conclusions.
Society offers greater protection (hence increased opportunities for survival) than living outside of a civilized society with its human construct morality. Loving one's neighbor as oneself is fundamental to that increased protection. Your premise that "survival of the fittest" is the opposite of "love your neighbor as yourself is not justified.
"One approach, if followed leads to a human race that evolves into a world of peace. The other leads to a human race that evolves into destruction.
Ironic, eh?"
It would appear that we're evolving into the latter, thus showing that a majority of the species have actually 'followed' the evolutionary conclusions of the latter approach...while claiming to follow the former, religious approach.
Unlike your point, this one isn't that ironic.