Replies

If you had said that atheists believe there is no life after death, AND they have no ethical or moral principles, therefore they can rape and pillage, you'd have made your point.

Logically, the evolutionist/theist can still jettison their theism for the underline evolutionary justification at any time. The creationist has no such recourse.

The logical implications of evolution on both science and morality are evident when you look at the mechanisms chosen. In this case, the mechanisms are death. Moses, said "Choose Life". So the question of which you choose is logical.

Thus in discussing with my daughter whether she could marry an evolutionist, I said that even after marriage, he could justify leaving her at any time for a prettier or healthier woman; her holding on to him would be dependent on her functionality and desirability at any given time.

I now think that you are trolling for a response. I don't believe that a functional adult could be as sick-minded as you are pretending to be.

On the other hand, as you indicated, the atheist/evolutionist has no construct to hold onto morality at any time. Thus in discussing with my daughter whether she could marry an evolutionist, I said that even after marriage, he could justify leaving her at any time for a prettier or healthier woman; her holding on to him would be dependent on her functionality and desirability at any given time.

Do you KNOW how incredibly infuriating and insulting this is? And what a LIE it is? Do you ever get out of your church and meet people in the real world? Do you know that if your daughter marries a Christian, he can justify sacrificing his child if he believes God is telling him to? That he is supposed to love God more than he loves her and even "hate his family"? The atheist seems to have a greater sense of morality than you do, seeing as you keep lying and insulting atheists and spreading the hate to future generations. WWJD?! Do you think he would lie and insult people? Do you think God approves of this? I am a young, atheist, college-aged female. Obviously I'm not married and have no family of my own. You're implying that I should never have a family. The way you characterize me and others who happen to share my philosophical beliefs is hideous.

"On the other hand, as you indicated, the atheist/evolutionist has no construct to hold onto morality at any time. Thus in discussing with my daughter whether she could marry an evolutionist, I said that even after marriage, he could justify leaving her at any time for a prettier or healthier woman; her holding on to him would be dependent on her functionality and desirability at any given time."

That is absolutely so true. That is why my marriage has lasted 28 years, while my father (a creationist) has had two marriages, one lasting 11 years, the other lasting 14 years.

I suggest you stop over-generalizing.

On the other hand, as you indicated, the atheist/evolutionist has no construct to hold onto morality at any time. Thus in discussing with my daughter whether she could marry an evolutionist, I said that even after marriage, he could justify leaving her at any time for a prettier or healthier woman; her holding on to him would be dependent on her functionality and desirability at any given time.

You know, a gravitarian could justify leaving her for a shorter woman.

Logically, the evolutionist/theist can still jettison their theism for the underline evolutionary justification at any time.

What is this justification? Be specific.

On the other hand, as you indicated, the atheist/evolutionist has no construct to hold onto morality at any time. Thus in discussing with my daughter whether she could marry an evolutionist, I said that even after marriage, he could justify leaving her at any time for a prettier or healthier woman; her holding on to him would be dependent on her functionality and desirability at any given time.

What is to stop a non-evolutionist from doing this? Be specific.

The logical implications of evolution on both science and morality are evident when you look at the mechanisms chosen. In this case, the mechanisms are death.

Not only are you arguing from a bogus strawman, you are attempting to appeal to consequence. Nothing that you have presented is an argument against the theory of evolution. Not liking the implications -- which, I might add, you've gotten wrong -- of a theory has no bearing on the validity of the theory. It is clear that you lack a logical and rational argument, so you lie about what evolution states, what it implies ("death" is not a driving factor in evolution) and pretend that you've made some profound statement. You haven't, you've just exposed that you're a shameless liar.