Religious Discussion Thread

[Northern Beaches dog]

The problem is that you're still seeing it as black and white. Good and evil. Your first statement is more accurate. Survival of the species is not good or evil, it just is. It may seem. There's no assumption of good or right, just an end result.

We as humans see good and evil, but these are things set by humans.

If there is no objective morality, then good and evil are illusory. They actually do not exist. They are just man made concepts.
If that is the case, then your notion of good and evil is no more correct than Hitler's notion of good and evil.
Is that your belief?

The monkey ladder experiment is a good example of this. In the experiment they put bananas at the top of a ladder. Any time a monkey climbed the ladder to grab a banana, they tortured the other monkeys. Eventually the other monkeys learned that they would be harmed if they let a monkey climb the ladder, so any time a monkey tried to climb the ladder, the other monkeys beat it.

Eventually the scientists replaced the monkeys one by one. Everytime the new monkey would try to climb the ladder and it would be beaten up by the other monkeys. Over time the scientists replaced all the monkeys so the original monkeys who were tortured due at the start were no longer there. But the new monkeys would still beat anyone who climbed the ladder, even though they didn't know why they were doing it.

All species are the same. We develop these beliefs and ideas based on past experience and we teach these to others. Generations down the line we may not know why we do stuff, but we do it because it's what we know.

No right or wrong. No good or evil. Just the result of thousands of years of learning.

Ok, it seems you have contradicted yourself here.
If you are going down the socio evolutionary path to explain morality, then that does not make them objective.
Essentially, these are just behaviours that have been adopted because they are beneficial to the survival of the species. That does not make them morally good.
If it is not a fact that any species ought to survive and flourish, then any acts that promote survival and flourishing are neither right or wrong.
As we are on a league forum, lets use a league example.
The objective of the game is to win. You win by scoring more points than the opposition.
If a player scores a try, then that is deemed "good" ONLY because it is an act that is consistent with the goal of the game.
But notice in this context, good is not a moral term, it is just in line with reaching a goal - to score more points than the opposition.

If in the game of rugby league, there is no ultimate goal of winning, then is breaking a tackle good? Is scoring a try good? It is neither because there is no goal.

Is it a fact that you ought to live to 50, 60 70 , 80 years of age?
Was the universe created for you to live to those ages?
Is it woven in the universe that you must live to ages?
Under naturalism, the answer is no.
It is neither right or wrong if you never lived at all or only lived to 6 months or 100.
If that is the case, if i killed you tomorrow, then i have not actually done anything wrong or evil.
Now, here is where i noticed when discussing with non believers the disconnect.
That is, you may not like it, you may PREFER and DESIRE to live to X years, your family wants, desires for you live to X years, but what you and your family and even society WANT and PREFER, does not make it a fact that is what OUGHT to happen. It does not make it fact.
Logically, it follows if there is no OM, then if killed you tomorrow, i have not actually done anything wrong or evil.
Is this what you truly believe?
Interested in your thoughts.

In terms of learning over thousands of years, this assumes are facts to learn. What facts are you talking about? How to survive better? Sure, but remember this is no different to learning how to score a try better. It is only true in the context of the goal.
If the goal is not a fact that we OUGHT to strive to, then i fail to see how we have learnt something good.
Isn't it more correct for you say, we just prefer and like different things now?

And humans aren't the result of a divine line. There was many other species that could have been us, but they died. We survived because every piece of evolution lead to our survival. Every mutation lead to us surviving and the millions of other species failing to survive. And when we die it'll be because we failed to adapt and other species will take our place. They'll have their own Gods and they'll forget about us and the millions of other species that failed alongside us.

If that is the case, then if a dictator lets off a nuke and kills everything on earth, has he actually done anything wrong? The answer is no if there is no OM.
If there is nothing occupying the earth then nothing wrong is going on. I mean, the earth was not designed for humans to live on it if there is no God, therefore if a dictator let off a nuke, he has not done anything wrong or evil. The earth will just continue rotating around the sun, whether it has creatures living on it or not is neither right or wrong.
Remember, what humans and creatures WANT and DESIRE does not make it a fact that is what ought to happen.
Is this what you believe?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Ok, it seems you have contradicted yourself here.
If you are going down the socio evolutionary path to explain morality, then that does not make them objective.
Essentially, these are just behaviours that have been adopted because they are beneficial to the survival of the species. That does not make them morally good.

Now you're starting to get it. Behaviours are adopted because they are beneficial for the survival of the species. But they are moral good, just not moral godly good. The difference is that those with low moral value have a lower chance of surviving within the tribe so their gene pool dwindles out.

If it is not a fact that any species ought to survive and flourish, then any acts that promote survival and flourishing are neither right or wrong.

Correct. Just beneficial. But here's the catch. Right or wrong is set by humanity. Humanity has evolved 2this morality therefore right and wrong is based on our own morality that we have developed.

As we are on a league forum, lets use a league example.
The objective of the game is to win. You win by scoring more points than the opposition.
If a player scores a try, then that is deemed "good" ONLY because it is an act that is consistent with the goal of the game.
But notice in this context, good is not a moral term, it is just in line with reaching a goal - to score more points than the opposition.

If in the game of rugby league, there is no ultimate goal of winning, then is breaking a tackle good? Is scoring a try good? It is neither because there is no goal.

A fine example, because Rugby League is a sport developed by humans with human code. Imagine playing Rugby League, but the rules are soccer rules. It wouldn't make sense to a rugby league player. But to a soccer player, rugby league rules wouldn't make sense.

We face the same with evolutionary mortality. Everything you see as morally good is only seen that way because you have evolved in a species that also sees it as morally good. If you evolved in another species in another galaxy then you would have different rules of morality.

Is it a fact that you ought to live to 50, 60 70 , 80 years of age?

No

Was the universe created for you to live to those ages?

No

Is it woven in the universe that you must live to ages?

No

Under naturalism, the answer is no.

Correct

It is neither right or wrong if you never lived at all or only lived to 6 months or 100.

Incorrect. Again, that's black and white. It is considered right and wrong because that is the experience of those who witness it. If a child dies it is wrong because those who witness it consider it to be wrong. And it's considered to be wrong because the death of a child does not advance the survival of the species.

And humans live that long due to genetics. But many don't live that long.

If that is the case, if i killed you tomorrow, then i have not actually done anything wrong or evil.

Incorrect again as murdering me would be frowned upon and lead to a shortening of the life of the species.

Now, here is where i noticed when discussing with non believers the disconnect.
That is, you may not like it, you may PREFER and DESIRE to live to X years, your family wants, desires for you live to X years, but what you and your family and even society WANT and PREFER, does not make it a fact that is what OUGHT to happen. It does not make it fact.
Logically, it follows if there is no OM, then if killed you tomorrow, i have not actually done anything wrong or evil.
Is this what you truly believe?
Interested in your thoughts.

Again. Incorrect. You're creating an incorrect base and building your assumptions on that base. You're still trying to address it with the is/ought fallacy which is not relevant here at all. This has nothing to do with that fallacy so if you keep bringing up "ought", it's like me saying criticising your support of the Roosters after you repeatedly said that you don't support the Roosters.

In terms of learning over thousands of years, this assumes are facts to learn. What facts are you talking about? How to survive better? Sure, but remember this is no different to learning how to score a try better. It is only true in the context of the goal.
If the goal is not a fact that we OUGHT to strive to, then i fail to see how we have learnt something good.
Isn't it more correct for you say, we just prefer and like different things now?

Incorrect as well. It's genetic mutation, not learning. The learning comes when society develops but the innate instinct not to kill is genetic.

If that is the case, then if a dictator lets off a nuke and kills everything on earth, has he actually done anything wrong? The answer is no if there is no OM.
If there is nothing occupying the earth then nothing wrong is going on. I mean, the earth was not designed for humans to live on it if there is no God, therefore if a dictator let off a nuke, he has not done anything wrong or evil. The earth will just continue rotating around the sun, whether it has creatures living on it or not is neither right or wrong.
Remember, what humans and creatures WANT and DESIRE does not make it a fact that is what ought to happen.
Is this what you believe?

Again. You're trying to bring the Is/Ought fallacy into this debate but it has no relevance here at all. You're arguing a point that doesn't fit with the debate and I don't think you're going to accept another type of good and evil. A grey scale of morality. You're trying to base your argument on the works of a devoutly Christian philosopher who got his name from badmouthing Dawkins and acting like a hero when Dawkins refused to debate him, even though in Dawkins words, he wasn't worth debating.

And I mean no offence. Craig is just another theological philosopher who could not accept or understand anything outside of religion.

If humanity considers something evil then it's evil regardless of what any God or Deity may say. If humanity is wiped out then there's no moral ambiguity, humanity is just gone. Pure and simple.

Sometimes life doesn't need the God of morality. Sometimes it's just life. This is what needs to be accepted in a philosophical debate. I can accept that if a God exists then that God may have created and/or dictated morality for humans. But if you can't accept that morality may have the potential to come from elsewhere, then you're never going to be able to understand my debate points because you won't accept that the foundation of them is remotely possible.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

Now you're starting to get it. Behaviours are adopted because they are beneficial for the survival of the species. But they are moral good, just not moral godly good. The difference is that those with low moral value have a lower chance of surviving within the tribe so their gene pool dwindles out.

But again, if that happens, nothing wrong or evil has happened.

Correct. Just beneficial. But here's the catch. Right or wrong is set by humanity. Humanity has evolved 2this morality therefore right and wrong is based on our own morality that we have developed.

Who is we?
Based on your previous post above, Hitler and the Nazis did not WANT the Jews gene pool from advancing and made policies to stop it from happening.
Therefore, when they burnt or tortured a Jew, something good happened because it was in congruent with the goal of killing off the Jews.
Alternatively, if a Jew escaped and propagated there DNA, then something wrong or evil occurred.
This is the point, if we are to go down the naturalist like of reasoning, we cannot say what Hitler and the Nazis did was wrong or evil. They just had different goals to everyone else. Just a different subjective preference. We can only dislike what they did. No different to a group of people who do not like blonde looking people.
As soon as you say they did something wrong, you are admitting OM exists.
Is this what you truly believe? At this point you can only say yes, any other answer is not a logical deduction.

A fine example, because Rugby League is a sport developed by humans with human code. Imagine playing Rugby League, but the rules are soccer rules. It wouldn't make sense to a rugby league player. But to a soccer player, rugby league rules wouldn't make sense.

We face the same with evolutionary mortality. Everything you see as morally good is only seen that way because you have evolved in a species that also sees it as morally good. If you evolved in another species in another galaxy then you would have different rules of morality.

If this is the case, then we are in no position to condemn the Nazis for what they did. After all, they just evolved and conditioned in a different way.
It would be illogical to call the Nazis and Hitler as evil and say they did something wrong.
Is that your view?
Is it wrong to burn 6 million Jews, woman and children or is it just a point of indifference like preferring blonde woman over brunettes?
My experience with discussing this issue is many people arguing on the other side just give lip service to back there argument, because they realise if they agree it is absurd. It is not something anyone believes.
At our very core of our conscience, we know that killing 6 million Jews as being wrong as 1+1=5 as being wrong.
No one lives there lives acts as if morality is subjective. It is something unliveable and akin to believing the external world does not exist.



No

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Other examples. Women were told that they shouldn't have the right to vote. Black people were beaten to death.

Or we could take it closer to home. The Church tortured and killed heretics in the name of God.

Are we calling this morally good or morally evil. Did the Church do wrong?

Now days we can look at it and say Yes. Back then, it was acceptable. Even considered morally good. Because that's what society dictated at the time.

The part you keep stumbling on is the grey area. It's never black and white. When the church ordered the deaths of people, it wasn't good or evil. It was them doing what they believed.

When Nazis killed Jews they believed they did good. But part of them also said that it was wrong. And that's the evolutionary response trying to keep humanity alive.

Basic psychological conflict between urge to protect and urge to kill. No God required.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

But in the end. You're a human who grew up in a certain society seeing the world from what you're taught. And you're stating that people who grew up in a different society with different values taught to then are somehow morally exactly the same.

Which begs the question, how did all those Nazis carry out all those atrocities with only a few standing against them. Surely an entire race of people couldn't be evil, right?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

And if that is correct, which it is. Then you accept that morality is primarily subjective, which it is. Then you accept that God need not exist.

Sorry God, you put up a good fight but human logic won in the end.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

The great thing about philosophy is that it asks questions that raise debate. The problem with the likes of William Lane Craig who raises the Is/Ought God stuff is that he does not ask philosophical questions. He makes theological statements of belief under the guise of philosophy.

Philosophy requires that you accept that all is possible. Craig's statements require that only his belief is possible.

It's not philosophy, it's ideology.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

Other examples. Women were told that they shouldn't have the right to vote. Black people were beaten to death.

But if there is no OM, then such acts are neither right or wrong or good or evil.

Or we could take it closer to home. The Church tortured and killed heretics in the name of God.

Are we calling this morally good or morally evil. Did the Church do wrong?

That is in contrary to Jesus' commands which is to love each other, turn the other cheek etc.
But again, if there is OM, those things are not wrong or evil. You and i and others may not like it, but they certainly are not wrong.

Now days we can look at it and say Yes. Back then, it was acceptable. Even considered morally good. Because that's what society dictated at the time.

If there is no OM, then logically we cannot condemn or say what they did was wrong.

The part you keep stumbling on is the grey area. It's never black and white. When the church ordered the deaths of people, it wasn't good or evil. It was them doing what they believed.

But that was contrary to Jesus' teachings.
Its almost like a club when there supporters riot. The club does not endorse riot, yet the fans do it.

When Nazis killed Jews they believed they did good. But part of them also said that it was wrong. And that's the evolutionary response trying to keep humanity alive.

By saying right and wrong, you are using OM language. If there is no OM, the logical language to use is, like and don't like.

Basic psychological conflict between urge to protect and urge to kill. No God required.

But again, if there is OM, it is just instinct, not right and wrong.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I'm sorry but I can't keep replying if you keep messing up the quote responses. It makes it difficult as I have to do a lot of work to fix it up.

After each paragraph you have to put an end of quote "/QUOTE" in brackets or it just seems confusing.

Btw, haven't read your response yet. Just too confusing to read it like that.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

The great thing about philosophy is that it asks questions that raise debate. The problem with the likes of William Lane Craig who raises the Is/Ought God stuff is that he does not ask philosophical questions. He makes theological statements of belief under the guise of philosophy.

Philosophy requires that you accept that all is possible. Craig's statements require that only his belief is possible.

It's not philosophy, it's ideology.

Morality is a branch of philosophy. What is debatable is the grounding of morality.
Many opponents of Craig fail to ground morality.

I will use a final example to see where the confusion arises.

People EQUATE the word "good" with flourishing and survival.
If i say drink green tea because it is good for you, this is because it is beneficial to your health which contributes to the goal of survival and flourishing, which has been defined as being good.
However, under naturalism, survival and flourishing is NEITHER good or right. Therefore, logically, drinking green tea is neither good or right because survival and flourishing is neither good or right.
The same goes is if i poisoned you, it is neither wrong or evil because under naturalism it is neither right or good that you ought to survive and flourish.
The issues begin when you equate good with flourishing and survival.
Biology/evolution describes what IS, not what it OUGHT to be.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

I'm sorry but I can't keep replying if you keep messing up the quote responses. It makes it difficult as I have to do a lot of work to fix it up.

After each paragraph you have to put an end of quote "/QUOTE" in brackets or it just seems confusing.

Btw, haven't read your response yet. Just too confusing to read it like that.

Ah ok

 

[Hacky McAxe]

OK, had a quick look through it and my general response it:

1) you're still not understanding what I'm saying. You still can't see morality without God. I have repeatedly stated that there is stuff that could be construed as Objective Morality. Just that what we're talking about doesn't imply God. I have explained it in-depth and each time you jump back to Craig's basic debate points which I refuted long ago but you keep bringing them up like they're new and we never discussed them. We're past that.

2) Agreed on Jesus teaching. That didn't stop the Church from sanctioning acts that Jesus would despise

3) right or wrong from a God point of view and right or wrong from an evolutionary point of view are two different things. I have repeatedly pointed out the right or wrong from an evolutionary point of view and each time you jump back to Craig's definition of right or wrong like it's the only plausible version of right and wrong, which ignores the possibility of non-God driven morality

Basically put, it's a pointless philosophical debate. As I pointed out earlier. If you cannot see an alternative to the stance you have set in stone, then it's not a conversation. It's a person talking to a brick wall.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

TLDR, no real discussion here.

Don't get me wrong, I find it interesting. But if I buy a pair of pants that are too small for me, I'm willing to lose weight to wear those pants. But it the pants are really small and won't stretch at all, then there's no point to me working to fit into those pants.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

OK. That was way more confusing than I intended.

Basically what I'm saying is that I find the conversation interesting, but it's obvious that your stance is that you are only trying to convince people that you are right with no exception that you could learn anything.

I like conversations and debate where I can learn stuff. If the other side has no chance of learning or teaching then the conversation is no better than me talking to a television that repeats itself constantly

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Morality is a branch of philosophy. What is debatable is the grounding of morality.
Many opponents of Craig fail to ground morality.

I will use a final example to see where the confusion arises.

People EQUATE the word "good" with flourishing and survival.
If i say drink green tea because it is good for you, this is because it is beneficial to your health which contributes to the goal of survival and flourishing, which has been defined as being good.
However, under naturalism, survival and flourishing is NEITHER good or right. Therefore, logically, drinking green tea is neither good or right because survival and flourishing is neither good or right.
The same goes is if i poisoned you, it is neither wrong or evil because under naturalism it is neither right or good that you ought to survive and flourish.
The issues begin when you equate good with flourishing and survival.
Biology/evolution describes what IS, not what it OUGHT to be.

This is the problem I'm talking about.

The stance that under naturalism, there can be no good. It's extremely restrictive.

For example, take the definitions of Good. Only one of them relates to God and it still doesn't require God. None require God or morality of God, but you stance is that morality cannot exist without God. Which basically says that you don't accept the definitions set in the dictionary.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

OK, had a quick look through it and my general response it:

1) you're still not understanding what I'm saying. You still can't see morality without God. I have repeatedly stated that there is stuff that could be construed as Objective Morality. Just that what we're talking about doesn't imply God. I have explained it in-depth and each time you jump back to Craig's basic debate points which I refuted long ago but you keep bringing them up like they're new and we never discussed them. We're past that.

2) Agreed on Jesus teaching. That didn't stop the Church from sanctioning acts that Jesus would despise

3) right or wrong from a God point of view and right or wrong from an evolutionary point of view are two different things. I have repeatedly pointed out the right or wrong from an evolutionary point of view and each time you jump back to Craig's definition of right or wrong like it's the only plausible version of right and wrong, which ignores the possibility of non-God driven morality

Basically put, it's a pointless philosophical debate. As I pointed out earlier. If you cannot see an alternative to the stance you have set in stone, then it's not a conversation. It's a person talking to a brick wall.

You only need to demonstrate one example of OM to show it is exists.
The question is then, how is it grounded?
You are going down the route of evolution/biology which is where we are talking past each other.
Morality is by definition PRESCRIPTIONS, ie you ought to do this, you ought not do this.
Biology/evolution is by definition DESCRIPTIVE, it's what IS.
Under naturalism, we are all animals. We humans have no more intrinsic value than any other animal, including cockroaches, rats etc.
Lets look at ducks as an example.
In the wild it is observed that ducks pack rape. When we observe this pack rape, we do not label this act as being wrong or evil. It is essentially what ducks do. It just IS. It is just a behaviour adopted by the evolutionary process as it is beneficial for the survival of ducks.
Now what do we conclude if we observe a pack rape of a woman?
We in our consciense know that it is evil/wrong. If anyone including the rapists say it is right, we say they are wrong for saying it is right.
The question for you is, if it is not wrong for ducks, what makes it all of a sudden wrong for humans?
Who imposes such prohibitions? Just because we have more complex nervous systems, how does that make it all of a sudden wrong for us humans?
You may say, well we have learnt that it is wrong for us. Well, we can only learn facts, so this is admitting such facts exist (OM).

 

[Hacky McAxe]

You only need to demonstrate one example of OM to show it is exists.
The question is then, how is it grounded?
You are going down the route of evolution/biology which is where we are talking past each other.
Morality is by definition PRESCRIPTIONS, ie you ought to do this, you ought not do this.
Biology/evolution is by definition DESCRIPTIVE, it's what IS.
Under naturalism, we are all animals. We humans have no more intrinsic value than any other animal, including cockroaches, rats etc.
Lets look at ducks as an example.
In the wild it is observed that ducks pack rape. When we observe this pack rape, we do not label this act as being wrong or evil. It is essentially what ducks do. It just IS. It is just a behaviour adopted by the evolutionary process as it is beneficial for the survival of ducks.
Now what do we conclude if we observe a pack rape of a woman?
We in our consciense know that it is evil/wrong. If anyone including the rapists say it is right, we say they are wrong for saying it is right.
The question for you is, if it is not wrong for ducks, what makes it all of a sudden wrong for humans?
Who imposes such prohibitions? Just because we have more complex nervous systems, how does that make it all of a sudden wrong for us humans?
You may say, well we have learnt that it is wrong for us. Well, we can only learn facts, so this is admitting such facts exist (OM).

Nope. Again, you're still doing the black and white thing Craig does. This is why no evolutionary biologist takes him serious. This is why they don't bother with him. It's complexity crammed into basics and it doesn't work.

"you only need one example of OM to show it exists"

If I show you a piece of ice, does that prove that all water is frozen all the time? Does it prove that water cannot exist in a fluid state?

Everything you keep saying has been covered extensively by me and others but you keep bringing it up like we never had this conversation. That's why I keep saying that this discussion is pointless. You have a set belief in your mind and if anyone points out anything incompatible with it, you ignore it and pretend it was never said.

Not saying that it's a terrible thing, just that this is what religion is. Religion is not a search for knowledge. It's a belief that won't accept alternatives. When knowledge and religion meet, knowledge falls into a void of nothingness.

That's why I find theology interesting. The real theologists look for reason behind the religion. Unfortunately the majority of theologists ignore the reason and replace it with blind belief that they'll militantly defend even if it's wrong.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

Nope. Again, you're still doing the black and white thing Craig does. This is why no evolutionary biologist takes him serious. This is why they don't bother with him. It's complexity crammed into basics and it doesn't work.

"you only need one example of OM to show it exists"

If I show you a piece of ice, does that prove that all water is frozen all the time? Does it prove that water cannot exist in a fluid state?

Everything you keep saying has been covered extensively by me and others but you keep bringing it up like we never had this conversation. That's why I keep saying that this discussion is pointless. You have a set belief in your mind and if anyone points out anything incompatible with it, you ignore it and pretend it was never said.

Not saying that it's a terrible thing, just that this is what religion is. Religion is not a search for knowledge. It's a belief that won't accept alternatives. When knowledge and religion meet, knowledge falls into a void of nothingness.

That's why I find theology interesting. The real theologists look for reason behind the religion. Unfortunately the majority of theologists ignore the reason and replace it with blind belief that they'll militantly defend even if it's wrong.

But that still proves that ice DOES exist.
In terms of morality, what you may think are not black and white situations or grey situations does not follow.
Just because we cannot grasp such examples, does not mean they are not objective.
This is more of a discussion of epistemology. The argument focuses on ontology.

Are you able to respond to the duck example?

Also, i think Michael Ruse says it perfectly here

"The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says 'Love they neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . ."

So basically, naturalistic evolution acts as a con artist tricking people into thinking that morality is real. So the act of rape itself isn’t morally wrong. Rather, our genes have tricked us into thinking rape is wrong.

So when you hear about a rape, it is not really wrong, our genes have tricked us into thinking it is wrong because it is beneficial for the species.
But we do not bow down to evolution. After all, evolution also gave us diseases yet we try to eradicate them.
Why can't we eradicate this false belief that rape is wrong and just go out and rape?
I mean, evolution has played a hoax on us.

 

[dogwhisperer]

Lol...a few on here have met their match.

 

[Tuffers]

So basically, naturalistic evolution acts as a con artist tricking people into thinking that morality is real. So the act of rape itself isn’t morally wrong. Rather, our genes have tricked us into thinking rape is wrong.

So when you hear about a rape, it is not really wrong, our genes have tricked us into thinking it is wrong because it is beneficial for the species.
But we do not bow down to evolution. After all, evolution also gave us diseases yet we try to eradicate them.
Why can't we eradicate this false belief that rape is wrong and just go out and rape?
I mean, evolution has played a hoax on us.

Maybe you should try saying this stuff out loud before you type it. Might be a good sense check.