[Morality Games]

Contradictory evidence only exist for select claims. Yet many people continue to try and apply these universally. As if evolution disproves every religion by default.

Evolution contradicts religion in many ways aside from the literal, and these are just as upsetting to atheists -- in a world where not everyone can be a scientist, the authenticity and credibility of organizations claiming to supply truthful information is intergral to what we decide to basis our views on.

Religions insisted they provided authentic truths.

The truths they provided for all their history up to this point were contrary to evolution.

Evolution appears to be true.

Therefore, the authenticity of religion is undermined.

And:

Religions places emphasis on their traditions as a means to provide humans with the best life possible.

Religious tradition held certain existential claims regarding the origins of man.

These claims are contrary to evolution.

Religous authorities and adherents backpeddled after it became it too apparent evolution was true for arguing against it to look credible (although they fought for a long time).

Therefore, although they salvaged what they could, religious authorities and adherents broke a defining part of their tradition in order to save the rest.

So, they employed a double-standard, which discredits them.

Nobody likes double-standards except the people who use them.

Only if you define well-being as longer life, health, etc.

The term 'well-being' was coined to refer to a state of happiness and healthiness and has continously been used in that context. If someone violates that convention, then their use of the term is merely nominal until enough people start using it in that context for the new meaning to be considered the standard convention. The old meaning is retired or placed under a new term.

But that is a value judgment. That is the point. If you believe that is the right way to live then it become the right way to live.

Yes and yes, but do you look no further than that?

How do you say which consequences of a given life style are best?

I consider my abstract understanding of my species, look at individual persons and see how their values are working out for them, and conceive of new values that might improve their health. My observation goes that living organisms can accomplish much in such a state, and not much in an unhealthy state.

Longer life is only good if you believe it is good.

People typically do. That's why I mentioned it.

Others may say it is not the length but the intensity (not quantity but quality).

People typically want both. That's why I mentioned happiess and healthiness too ... the whole bundle. Notice I used the term 'and' and not 'or', meaning (under formal logic) these conditions are not to be considered seperate from each other.

Regardless how do we judge which of these is the best without at some point say "I believe this is the best. Therefore..." and the other judgments follow.

I don't disagree, but the fact is 'judgments' emerge from features of being human that can be either satisfied, unsatisfied, or somewhere between the two -- no judgment that is in continued use fails in every respect, but overall, logically, there are some values which, even if they are not presently in use, would function better in helping people find their path in life.

The crux of your criticism of my view, though not explicited is this:

There is no universal authority (God, Natural Law, or Human Nature) you can refer to which proves that people ought to value or do as I say they should -- that is, I am standing alone with my views, as though I were a god, natural law, or nature in myself.

Well, the last part is right, and since I can recognize features of myself in other beings, I can, on basis of my knowledge, reccomend values which might better satisfy the wants from which their present values emerged -- which I do because something in my nature (perhaps compassion or selfishness) requires it of me.