Many atheists point to natural selection as being an objective source for morality. To sum it up, morals are a product of evolution, and they help ensure our survival. Good acts or behavior are simply those that promote our survival while the bad acts go against that.

I want to give a few objections/questions to this and let those serve as the topic of this thread.

Objections:
1. Evolution is not about our survival but the survival of every organism. In other words, every organism follows natural selection. How can we use natural selection as a guide when things evolve that can kill humans, like viruses, other species (stronger or more superior than us)? How can we know that we are supposed to survive as opposed to some other organism? It would seem that even if we follow natural selection that it does not guarantee our survival.

2. If natural selection is a guide, then how can we reliably know which acts are good or bad. Some Roman emperors engaged in pederasty (sexual activity with young boys) and that empire lasted hundreds of years. Why couldn't we have known from day one that pederasty was wrong? During the practice, it would've seemed right given the fact that the empire was flourishing. How would scientists go about figuring out these morals in an objective way?
 
1. the argument might be made that the viruses and stronger organisms have actually made us stronger, by killing off the weak.
2. i guess the Romans copied the Greeks there, and that was considered a completely normal deal, considering the sexual proclivities of 14 year old boys, etc. While i find it distasteful myself, im not interested in judging them so much as curious how the practice fell out of favor? My guess is senator’s dicks rotting off from the syph, but im guessing.
 
1. the argument might be made that the viruses and stronger organisms have actually made us stronger, by killing off the weak.
2. i guess the Romans copied the Greeks there, and that was considered a completely normal deal, considering the sexual proclivities of 14 year old boys, etc. While i find it distasteful myself, im not interested in judging them so much as curious how the practice fell out of favor? My guess is senator’s dicks rotting off from the syph, but im guessing.
If that's the case, that would leave an opening for Christians to attack it on emotional grounds, e.g. under Christianity, God cares about the weak and poor, while evolution does not.
 
If that's the case, that would leave an opening for Christians to attack it on emotional grounds, e.g. under Christianity, God cares about the weak and poor, while evolution does not.
hmm, good point…even if most Christians are not really very charitable. But i have noticed that stress seems to be a necessary part of life, eg the mouse utopia experiments, etc. Iow “heaven” would actually be hell