American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America

[chomerics]

You're funny Chomerics, you made up an arbitrary number of 10 million people and handed off like it was fact, and you made a statement that said that Christians don't disagree with the televangelists (thereby passively agreeing with them), and now you're desperately trying to maintain your position which is groundless to begin with. Oh, but wait, it was based on your personal experience, so tell me did you personally interview the 10 million people? Or are you going to at least admit that you made up the number, and admit that your personal experience may very well not represent the beliefs of the majority of Christians? Because personally, I find it hard to believe that your experience within Christianity is so extensive that you can speak with authority on behalf of Christians as a whole. Also remember, you were the one who made the claim, its your job to back it up, not mine to refute.

Are you going to comment on anything I stated above, or continue to harp on a meaningless point to hide what I said earlier. . . you do not need to have religion for morals.

You implied that you need religion for morals, and I don't think you do at all. . .If anything, as you study the history of religion, you will see the basic morals they claim to have are not found in their possession at all when their actions are examined.

[headexplode]

Are you going to comment on anything I stated above, or continue to harp on a meaningless point to hide what I said earlier. . . you do not need to have religion for morals.

You implied that you need religion for morals, and I don't think you do at all. . .If anything, as you study the history of religion, you will see the basic morals they claim to have are not found in their possession at all when their actions are examined.

You're funny Chomerics, you made up an arbitrary number of 10 million people and handed off like it was fact, and you made a statement that said that Christians don't disagree with the televangelists (thereby passively agreeing with them), and now you're desperately trying to maintain your position which is groundless to begin with. Oh, but wait, it was based on your personal experience, so tell me did you personally interview the 10 million people? Or are you going to at least admit that you made up the number, and admit that your personal experience may very well not represent the beliefs of the majority of Christians? Because personally, I find it hard to believe that your experience within Christianity is so extensive that you can speak with authority on behalf of Christians as a whole. Also remember, you were the one who made the claim, its your job to back it up, not mine to refute.

A fight to the death. Which one will remain standing?

[AsburySkinsFan]

If you really want to get into the nitty gritty of brain development, there is a right and wrong moral code build into people, it is called your conscience. ... So if you REALLY want to get into it, then yes, there IS a moral code built into our DNA. There is a sense of right and wrong, and that part of the brain, which some refer to as our "conscience" is contained in the frontal lobe.

Are you sure you want to use the "built in" langauge, because that lends itself very nicely to a "blind watchmaker" understanding of creation.

Now more to the point, if there is a "built in" genetic code for morality, what does it look like? What are its points? How do we know those points or morality? And how can we differentiate between our own cultural predispositions and the DNA morality that supposedly exists within everyone?

My guess is that your description of the DNA morality is going to line up very nicely with your own belief (or rather non-belief) system which seems at least to be very, very convenient for you.

The Constitution is a document which eliminates religion from government. In terms of "atheism" I can argue that it is an atheistic document, in that it tells people to worship who or what they want to worship, and it will have no say over their beliefs.

That is not an atheistic argument, it is at best an argument about indifference or agnostic, an atheistic document would look VERY similar to Karl Marx, there would be no religion and no provision for religion because it would have been seen as a hinderance to authentic life.

They will not be punished for worshiping, or not worshiping, that is not in the government's hands. That is exactly what I believe, and I could care less who you believe in, or who you don't.

Some how I find it hard to believe that you don't care that the vast majority of people are a people of faith in something other than themselves, and what's more that they actually let that faith determine many of their actions.

It does not matter what the people who wrote the document thought about god, they made SURE to ELIMINATE god from government!!!

Funny, these people might disagree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_Senate My guess is that there weren't very many atheists in that group.

Why is it that you think we want to remove religion?

because at every turn you make no bones about the fact that people with faith are some how deluded; and so by implication of that your way of life would be best described as one where everyoene came out from their dellusions.

It does not favor a single religion over another, and it eliminates any religion from government, that in and of itself is a basis for atheism.

So what you're saying is that by not choosing a religion is then a basis for atheism? Hardly Chomerics, making room at the table (which is what the Constitution does) is much different than atheism.

Chicken and egg. . .they played both sides of the argument. I found out a little bit about the Free Methodists, as well as how the South used religion and scripture to defend slavery, and you did not show how they were the reason it was eliminated. Maybe I chose the wrong words to state they did nothing, as there were groups of people from the North that helped the slaves,

Glad to see you can at least admit that.

If religion was the moral compass you say it is, then you never would have people using it to justify slavery in the first place. The word of the lord would have deemed slavery was not acceptable if the morality was in the religion. Because it was not, I can conclude that the morals of life do not come from religion but from man, which was what my argument was in the first place. . .

Look if you hand me a compass, and I use it as it was intended then I would have used that compass correctly, yes? However, if you hand me a compass and I choose to misrepresent the information that it provides then I would have used that compass wrongly, yes? Then what is sooooo hard for you to understand about the fact that people have used the compass of the Christian faith wrongly to defend all manner of actions? This is what I simply don't get.

[chomerics]

A fight to the death. Which one will remain standing?

You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

[AsburySkinsFan]

as you study the history of religion, you will see the basic morals they claim to have are not found in their possession at all when their actions are examined.

Yeah, Chomerics you got me, Christianity has been devoid of basic morals throughout all of history! Chomerics you have allowed your disdain for the faith to cloud every aspect of the church and its history. And, you act like some church leadership never went against what God had laid out for Christians, and in that way your description of the church as a whole is simply wrong and at worse deceitful.

[Shallow1]

You know it's always funny when people confuse "religion" with "Christianity"?

A "Christian" by definition is one who is a follower of Jesus Christ that is associated with Jesus because there behaviors and actions resemble Jesus Christs ie. a "Christian".

"religion" is some type of action or behavior that has become automatic and predictable, you can be "religios" about checking Extremeskins daily or getting coffee in the morning.

Jesus himself does not support religion,....I will post the scripture when I remeber what it is?

So the real problem is with "religious" people not a true "Christian", you will know a true "Christian" by there love not how well they debate the bible or anything else for that matter.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You know it's always funny when people confuse "religion" with "Christianity"?

A "Christian" by definition is one who is a follower of Jesus Christ that is associated with Jesus because there behaviors and actions resemble Jesus Christs ie. a "Christian".

"religion" is some type of action or behavior that has become automatic and predictable, you can be "religios" about checking Extremeskins daily or getting coffee in the morning.

Jesus himself does not support religion,....I will post the scripture when I remeber what it is?

So the real problem is with "religious" people not a true "Christian", you will know a true "Christian" by there love not how well they debate the bible or anything else for that matter.

Well said Shallow1, but some around here would like to think that all people who call themselves Christians really are Christians and are really acting like Christ acted and wants his followers to act, that way when they see a "Christian" misbehaving they are free then to condemn all Christians, the whole of faith, and then all of religion.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yeah, Chomerics you got me, Christianity has been devoid of basic morals throughout all of history! Chomerics you have allowed your disdain for the faith to cloud every aspect of the church and its history. And, you act like some church leadership never went against what God had laid out for Christians, and in that way your description of the church as a whole is simply wrong and at worse deceitful.

What's more Chomerics, is that you seem all to willing to blame the Christian faith when some "Christians" act badly and thus condemn Christianity on that basis, but you are amazingly slow to give credit to the Faith when those followers of Christianity act in ways that best personify the teachings of the faith; in those cases you seem to want to attribute the good behaviors to the DNA morality while attributing the bad behaviors to Christianity. This is hypocritical at best.

[chomerics]

Are you sure you want to use the "built in" langauge, because that lends itself very nicely to a "blind watchmaker" understanding of creation.

Now more to the point, if there is a "built in" genetic code for morality, what does it look like? What are its points? How do we know those points or morality? And how can we differentiate between our own cultural predispositions and the DNA morality that supposedly exists within everyone?

My guess is that your description of the DNA morality is going to line up very nicely with your own belief (or rather non-belief) system which seems at least to be very, very convenient for you.

Trying to put a finger on consciousness, or your conscience is not an easy thing to so, and currently right now science does not have the answer. I can not tell you what the exact code is, but I do know there is a code built into everyone, it is called your conscience. I also know the conscious part of your personality is located in the frontal lobe of your brain. . .but I do not claim to understand the inner workings of the the brain, and I do not know how long it will be until science can definitively tell us this is what this neuron does, this is how memory works and so on.

Our consciousness and value of right and wrong is programmed into our brain, and it is in the frontal lobe. We do not need religion to tell us what right or wrong is, and it is the same debate science always has with religion. Where science does not understand, religion will jump in and state the divinity. It has been a dance for the past 2 millennia, and it will continue to go into the future. i will be on the side which admits we do not know the answer to the question (ie. where does our morality come from) and you will be on the side which claims you are the answer to everything we do not know. The problem arises in that every time you lay claim to something and make it divine, you are wrong. From the world being flat, to Adam and Eve, to how the earth was created, every time religion tries to define the unknown, they are wrong.

Science, on the other hand takes a different approach to the problem, and we actually. . .GASP. . .look at evidence to come to a rational conclusion. This argument is no different then other arguments throughout history, from the Earth being the center of the universe, to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. in this case, I (science) believe that the "morality" of man is passed down through genetics and it is located in our frontal lobe, and you believe it is because of religion. I give an example of why I believe it (serial killers have damaged frontal lobes) you give nothing, it is the same circle that goes round and round. . .

That is not an atheistic argument, it is at best an argument about indifference or agnostic, an atheistic document would look VERY similar to Karl Marx, there would be no religion and no provision for religion because it would have been seen as a hinderance to authentic life.

Says who? I personally do not believe religion should be eliminated, neither do Atheists as a whole, nor did the founding fathers. What I believe is that people should be able to do what they want with their lives. This is what the founding fathers believed, that is what the Constitution is about. Marx believed he knew what was best for society, so he tries to meld society into his version of utopia, that is not what anyone here is trying to do. Marx wanted to eliminate free thought, I want to encourage it, as does the constitution, as did our founding fathers. Removing religion from a document does not make it communist or Marxist, it gives the individual the ability to decide for him and or herself. That is what the foundation of this government was about, and it is exactly what I believe. Removing religion from government can be viewed as an atheistic POV, because it allows free will.

Some how I find it hard to believe that you don't care that the vast majority of people are a people of faith in something other than themselves, and what's more that they actually let that faith determine many of their actions.

Yes, of course you find it hard to believe that I could give to craps if you believed in God, Muhammad, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Odin. For me personally, I don't care what invisible creature you believe in, it makes no difference to me at all. I only care that you are allowed to believe in what you want, and others are as well.

Funny, these people might disagree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplain_of_the_United_States_Senate My guess is that there weren't very many atheists in that group.

And because there is a chaplain in the US Senate that is proof of . . . what? The removed god from government, that is certain. Show me where they tell people who they can and can not worship, show me where they tell everyone they have to worship this god, but that deity is against the law. The document removed religion from government, and if you can't see the difference between that and having an on campus church, then you are bound to not understand the bigger picture. Why am I not surprised.

because at every turn you make no bones about the fact that people with faith are some how deluded; and so by implication of that your way of life would be best described as one where everyoene came out from their dellusions.

Do I think they are delusional? Nope, to each his own. Personally, i could care less who you worship or don;t worship. To each his own, and if you want religion in your life, the more power to you. I do not need it in my life, and I am able to see the world for what it truly is. I have equated coming to grips with my own belief system as myself removing the blinders of religion. I could care less how others view their life, or think about their death, but I equate my removal of religion as an eye opening experience. That does not mean that I look down on people who have religion, not in the least, I just chose a different path, which I feel makes me more enlightened. Others feel that religion makes them more enlightened, and for that I say kudos to them. I think one way they think another, no big deal, it does not mean I think they are delusional, it means I have my beliefs and they have their. No more no less.

So what you're saying is that by not choosing a religion is then a basis for atheism? Hardly Chomerics, making room at the table (which is what the Constitution does) is much different than atheism.

For me, I have no religion, and I am proud of it. I am an Atheist, and I am proud of that as well. I don't have Atheist parties, I don't attend any support groups, I just chose not to believe. Our Constitution also does not have a single religion ingrained in it's words, and it is also religion neutral. I chose to look at it as Atheistic, you chose to look at it as Agnostic, who cares. The bottom line is that is does not allow religion to enter government which is a great thing, and something I agree in.

Look if you hand me a compass, and I use it as it was intended then I would have used that compass correctly, yes? However, if you hand me a compass and I choose to misrepresent the information that it provides then I would have used that compass wrongly, yes? Then what is sooooo hard for you to understand about the fact that people have used the compass of the Christian faith wrongly to defend all manner of actions? This is what I simply don't get.

I agree that they have used Christianity to back their beliefs, and I see the scriptures they used to back them. I watch now and see people quote scripture in dealing with homosexual, and I can only think it has been the same argument from a different time period as I stated above. They will ALWAYS use scripture to defend their beliefs, because they can. It is the most contradictory book ever written, and it can be quoted for almost anything! I don't doubt that you can use it to justify Anna Nicole lifestyle, anyone can. The point was that Christianity is not the reason for the moral code in society, and if anything, it has been used to the opposite effect. It has been used to pervert and suppress people for thousands of years. Recognizing this is not hard to do, but seeing the correlation to past actions and how they relate to todays world is. Look no further then the damnation of homosexuals by the church groups, and you will see a striking similarity to the hatred of the Jews, or the negros, or the protestants, or the muslims. Throughout history, it has been used to justify immoral behavior, and calling them on it is nothing new. Exposing their faults is nothing new. It is a 2000 year old dance which will go on for a long long time in the future. . .

[AsburySkinsFan]

It is the most contradictory book ever written, and it can be quoted for almost anything! I don't doubt that you can use it to justify Anna Nicole lifestyle, anyone can. The point was that Christianity is not the reason for the moral code in society, and if anything, it has been used to the opposite effect. It has been used to pervert and suppress people for thousands of years. Recognizing this is not hard to do, but seeing the correlation to past actions and how they relate to todays world is. Look no further then the damnation of homosexuals by the church groups, and you will see a striking similarity to the hatred of the Jews, or the negros, or the protestants, or the muslims. Throughout history, it has been used to justify immoral behavior, and calling them on it is nothing new. Exposing their faults is nothing new. It is a 2000 year old dance which will go on for a long long time in the future. . .

This is simply laughable, that's it, just laughable. After reading this you truly expect me to believe that you don't care whether or not people are Christians?! LOL If so then you must mistake me for a fool. If I had such disdain for a certain people you would railroad me right out of here for my blatant hypocrisy. And honestly unless you can do better than this then we're done.

BTW, you might find these helpful.

[Mooka]

It's not an arguement, Mooka.... it's the reality of the situation. I'm not comparing slavery to sexual harassment; I'm just saying that we moved away from one set of problems and created a whole new set to replace them. A set that I think are at least as awful, because we should have known better.

Government and society is all about seeking the lesser of two evils.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Government and society is all about seeking the lesser of two evils.

We're not going to agree on that, Mooka. Maybe you're willing to accept the "lesser of two evils" as good enough in your society, and government but I definitely am not.

[PokerPacker]

Fine but upon what basis did they not find it acceptable? Hint, it probably started with Genesis and ended with Revelation.

some things can begin spontaniously, some things evolve over time. since i was not around then and i haven't done massive research on the subject, i do not feel qualified to answer the question. maybe it was from the bible, maybe it wasn't, i don't feel comfortable answering either way.

[AsburySkinsFan]

some things can begin spontaniously, some things evolve over time. since i was not around then and i haven't done massive research on the subject, i do not feel qualified to answer the question. maybe it was from the bible, maybe it wasn't, i don't feel comfortable answering either way.

That's an honest answer, and I can respect that.

[chomerics]

Yeah, Chomerics you got me, Christianity has been devoid of basic morals throughout all of history!

And I am just supposed to imagine the previous 1500 years of death and suppression by the church never happened? The Crusades, The Bonfire of the Vanities, Charlemagne, The burning of Witches, the enslavement of Jews. . . yea, they have really been a moralistic movement :doh:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I think seeing only black and white is dangerous, and can severely limit one's perspective on the world. I simply cannot accept this due to the nature of man. Personally, I don't believe that I'm either good or evil, I believe I'm both, and I believe every human being is both. Some may have one more than the other, but both are present in every human being. In life, I try to make choices I feel are "good" based on my upbringing and the sense of "morality" that I've come to accept. But sometimes, I make the "evil" choices and do things to harm people or myself. And sometimes-just sometimes, being evil can feel really good. Mostly, the dangerous comment was just a good-natured (no pun intended) jab at you.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that you have to agree with me. Nor am I going to claim that I or anyone else is morally perfect. What I will say, however, is that the moral relativism of modern society is a disaster that's already happening. I would suggest that evil feels good many times because that is the lure of it. Evil is generally easy and quick. It promises instant gratification, the consequences be damned. Unfortunately those instant results come with a serious price tag down the road.

Dangerous is a good word for me, head. It's a good word for any person who knows what they believe because unlike the moral relativists people like me are the ones generally willing to do whatever (or nearly whatever) is necessary to defend those beliefs.

I brought up the nature point because of your paganism, which I always understood to be really connected with the natural world, though I admittedly don't know much about it. Christianity has always asserted dominance over nature (and also fear of it) and so I am curious as to how you view nature and your place within it.

Paganism is a general heading, like Christianity. In fact, if you were to read certain dictionaries, you'd find it defined as any non-Christian religion. More recently the term has been used to cover a broad spectrum of "New Age" religions(which is laughable since some of these faiths are considerably older than Christianity) including Wiccanism, Gardnerians, Odinists, Satanists, etc.... Some of those groups are very much connect to the Earth and things like that, but not all of them. For example, my faith (a derivative of Norse Odinism) doesn't really buy into the ultra-environmentalist concepts that many other pagan groups do. Instead we see the planet as our home while we live out the threads of existance woven for us by the Fates. We don't go out of our way to destroy the natural world, and we honor certain aspects of nature, but we don't tie ourselves to trees or blow up animal research facilities like some other pagan groups have done in the past.

[Mooka]

We're not going to agree on that, Mooka. Maybe you're willing to accept the "lesser of two evils" as good enough in your society, and government but I definitely am not.

I'll take it. Most of the time we can't even get that right.

[chomerics]

This is simply laughable, that's it, just laughable. After reading this you truly expect me to believe that you don't care whether or not people are Christians?! LOL If so then you must mistake me for a fool. If I had such disdain for a certain people you would railroad me right out of here for my blatant hypocrisy.

If I was to hate Christians like you say I do, I would have absolutely no family, because they are all Christian. I also would have no girlfriend, as she is a Christian as well. Just because I don't care for the religion and I expose it for the farce I believe it is does not mean I hate Christians, or even care if they believe in god. To each their own, it is what I have ALWAYS believed. you may take an attack on your faith as an attack on you personally because you are in the field, and it IS your life. But that does not mean I have any contempt against you, or other Christians for that matter. If you want to believe it is your life, and your prerogative, and I challenge you to find a statement where I said I hate all Christians, because I have not.

Maybe if YOU could take a step outside of your little world, you would understand what I am talking about, yet I don't think you have the slightest idea of what I think at all. . .

[Sarge]

And I am just supposed to imagine the previous 1500 years of death and suppression by the church never happened? The Crusades, The Bonfire of the Vanities, Charlemagne, The burning of Witches, the enslavement of Jews. . . yea, they have really been a moralistic movement :doh:

George Bush I thinks you're immoral :laugh:

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

[chomerics]

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that you have to agree with me. Nor am I going to claim that I or anyone else is morally perfect. What I will say, however, is that the moral relativism of modern society is a disaster that's already happening. I would suggest that evil feels good many times because that is the lure of it. Evil is generally easy and quick. It promises instant gratification, the consequences be damned. Unfortunately those instant results come with a serious price tag down the road.

Dangerous is a good word for me, head. It's a good word for any person who knows what they believe because unlike the moral relativists people like me are the ones generally willing to do whatever (or nearly whatever) is necessary to defend those beliefs.

Paganism is a general heading, like Christianity. In fact, if you were to read certain dictionaries, you'd find it defined as any non-Christian religion. More recently the term has been used to cover a broad spectrum of "New Age" religions(which is laughable since some of these faiths are considerably older than Christianity) including Wiccanism, Gardnerians, Odinists, Satanists, etc.... Some of those groups are very much connect to the Earth and things like that, but not all of them. For example, my faith (a derivative of Norse Odinism) doesn't really buy into the ultra-environmentalist concepts that many other pagan groups do. Instead we see the planet as our home while we live out the threads of existance woven for us by the Fates. We don't go out of our way to destroy the natural world, and we honor certain aspects of nature, but we don't tie ourselves to trees or blow up animal research facilities like some other pagan groups have done in the past.

Mass, the open sexuality of Paganism is a contradiction to your beliefs in society decaying, do you not see this?

[PokerPacker]

Mass, the open sexuality of Paganism is a contradiction to your beliefs in society decaying, do you not see this?

mass is a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a delusion

[AsburySkinsFan]

And I am just supposed to imagine the previous 1500 years of death and suppression by the church never happened? The Crusades, The Bonfire of the Vanities, Charlemagne, The burning of Witches, the enslavement of Jews. . . yea, they have really been a moralistic movement :doh:

One word, actually its a name but you get the point; Constantine. He changed everything, and as I've said here many times before "Christianity survived inspite of Constantine, not because of him". If you think for a moment that I am advocating the type of church state government model that came with the merger of Christianity and the Roman Empire well sir then you simply know me not at all.

One question has been bugging me; if morality is in our DNA thus common to all then how is it that religion (which according to you is a man made phenomenon) supposedly contradicts that DNA engrained morality. Wouldn't this be like trying to see only in black and white; it seems an awful paradox that you have created because logic would say that if morality is in our DNA then naturally the religion that is thus man made should then reflect that DNA, yet you claim the opposite. So I guess we Christians are more like those psychopaths who's frontal lobes are damaged, and I guess that means we're all mentally deficient.

[AsburySkinsFan]

If I was to hate Christians like you say I do, I would have absolutely no family, because they are all Christian. I also would have no girlfriend, as she is a Christian as well. Just because I don't care for the religion and I expose it for the farce I believe it is does not mean I hate Christians, or even care if they believe in god.

No you don't care what I believe, you just think that we're all dellusional. Yeah, that's so much better. :doh: My momma used to tell me "Son, if you think everyone around you is crazy, then maybe they aren't the crazy ones."

p.s. my momma never said that, it just sounds better rhetorically.

[AsburySkinsFan]

And I am just supposed to imagine the previous 1500 years of death and suppression by the church never happened? The Crusades, The Bonfire of the Vanities, Charlemagne, The burning of Witches, the enslavement of Jews. . . yea, they have really been a moralistic movement :doh:

What's more is that you are only considering "Christianity" after the time of Constantine, not the 300 years of Christianity that existed prior to the Emperor. FYI, 300 years is a very long time, approx 75 years older than the US is now, so basically what you're doing is seeking to eliminate a span of history that is greater than all of the history of the United States in order to prove a point that is invalid to begin with. :applause: Bravo!

Not to mention that Christianity's face changed almost 500 years ago when Martin Luther was almost burned at the stake. But, never mind almost 800 years of history, because nothing truly important could have happened during that time.

[Bounce]

One question has been bugging me; if morality is in our DNA thus common to all then how is it that religion (which according to you is a man made phenomenon) supposedly contradicts that DNA engrained morality. Wouldn't this be like trying to see only in black and white; it seems an awful paradox that you have created because logic would say that if morality is in our DNA then naturally the religion that is thus man made should then reflect that DNA, yet you claim the opposite. So I guess we Christians are more like those psychopaths who's frontal lobes are damaged, and I guess that means we're all mentally deficient.

Social Evolution 101 - supposing that, say, 100,000 years ago, there was a genetic strain of humans that did not have any sort of frontal lobe "morality," this particular brand of humanity would have fallen flat on its face. The creation of a society with some sort of order, some sort of regard for the well-being of other people, is evolutionarily beneficial - it will quickly result in one group of humans (the "genetically moral" ones) being in an infinitely better position than the completely self-based ones. Quite simply, there's a perfectly good scientific explanation for why we have natural morality - the ones who didn't died out.