View Full Version : What Atheists do and do not beleive
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 10:33 AM
Regarding SAM's recent travesty of a thread on atheists
(here's a link so its not to be confused with any of her other recent debacles http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80737 )
It does actually raise some interesting questions.
In matters not relating to religion - such as politics and science - why would an atheist have a different view point to a theist.
Would that differing viewpoint stem obligately from their athesim?
What examples can you give of an atheist point of view on a non religious topic that stems speciffically from a person's atheism?
Syzygys
05-11-08, 10:39 AM
What examples can you give of an atheist point of view on a non religious topic that stems speciffically from a person's atheism?
Collecting stamps....For some reasosn atheists like to do that...
From my "research" so far, you can rule out morality
From my "research" so far, you can rule out morality
:bugeye:
You are actually saying atheists have no morality ? [Yes/No]
Regarding SAM's recent travesty of a thread on atheists
(here's a link so its not to be confused with any of her other recent debacles http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80737 )
It does actually raise some interesting questions.
In matters not relating to religion - such as politics and science - why would an atheist have a different view point to a theist.
Would that differing viewpoint stem obligately from their athesim?
What examples can you give of an atheist point of view on a non religious topic that stems speciffically from a person's atheism?
I wouldn't know Synth.
As far as I know atheists are just normal people that happen not to believe in any God.
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 10:47 AM
From my "research" so far, you can rule out morality
ok - we have a starting point then, so SAM
In matters not relating to morality WHY would an atheist have a different view point to a theist?
Would that differing viewpoint stem obligately from their athesim?
:bugeye:
You are actually saying atheists have no morality ? [Yes/No]
Enmos I suggest you actually read the questions?
What examples can you give of an atheist point of view on a non religious topic that stems speciffically from a person's atheism?
ok - we have a starting point then, so SAM
In matters not relating to morality WHY would an atheist have a different view point to a theist?
Would that differing viewpoint stem obligately from their athesim?
There is a thread on it. Look it up.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80416
Enmos I suggest you actually read the questions?
Ah ok. So atheists adopted theist morality ?
There is a thread on it. Look it up.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80416
I'm not sure whether or not this was directed at me..
Atheist believe in scientific realism (which changes every century from particles, to waves, quantum states...) while theist believe in something deeper that is atemporal , never changing
In some way we can say that atheist believe in the current society belief while theist believe in what science want to reach (the unification) but are not able to express it except by the three letter word "god"
Atheist believe in scientific realism (which changes every century from particles, to waves, quantum states...) while theist believe in something deeper that is atemporal , never changing
In some way we can say that atheist believe in the current society belief while theist believe in what science want to reach (the unification) but are not able to express it except by the three letter word "god"
Thats a very good synthesis of the two systems.
Repo Man
05-11-08, 11:24 AM
Here in the US, we have theists who justify support for Israel as necessary to bring about the second coming. Reagan had a Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, who was all for exploiting all natural resources with the greatest speed possible. He was quite open about being a fundamentalist Christian, and it was understood that his basic philosophy was that our natural resources only had to last until the second coming, which wasn't supposed to be too far off. So all talk of conservation and environmentalism were just the frothing of godless communists. God put trees here for humans to use by golly, so lets get to it!
From my "research" so far, you can rule out morality
What that confirms is the boundless ignorance and inability of theists to arrive at moral concepts with reason and rationale, as opposed to a contrived reward and punishment scheme exploited in medieval ages.
Clearly, the so-called "research" is limited to Islamic scriptures, where mankind is reduced to slobbering imbeciles unable to control their bodily functions without a divine babysitter to keep clean our orifices.
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 01:12 PM
Enmos I suggest you actually read the questions?
There is a thread on it. Look it up.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80416
I read some of that thread and to be frank most of your stuff on atheism and morality was a little child-like and poorly thought through - you didn't even bother with the biological/evolutionary origins to morality at all - even to refute them (astonishing!!)
So as a result of that we'll have to drop morality as a valid answer - do you have any other possible candidates SAM?
I read some of that thread and to be frank most of your stuff on atheism and morality was a little child-like and poorly thought through - you didn't even bother with the biological/evolutionary origins to morality at all - even to refute them (astonishing!!)
So as a result of that we'll have to drop morality as a valid answer - do you have any other possible candidates SAM?
More "rational" discourse? Atheism "preaches" morality now, does it? :D
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 01:22 PM
More "rational" discourse? Atheism "preaches" morality now, does it? :D
Now you are just being silly (again) - morality is innate - prove me wrong
Now you are just being silly (again) - morality is innate - prove me wrong
Which morality?
Homosexuality is wrong. Innate or not?
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 01:38 PM
Which morality?
Homosexuality is wrong. Innate or not?
I fail to see what homosexuality has to do with morality - you are confusing superstition (don't touch mens dicks if you are man or unmarried woman, don't eat cheese on the third tuesday in september if the sun is shining and your name is Jeffrey etc etc) with REAL morals (don't kill, don't steal, care for the poor and sick etc etc)
secondly there is some evidence to suggest that homosexuality apparently has a biological - perhaps even genetic- origin - so how can nature be immoral?
I fail to see what homosexuality has to do with morality - you are confusing superstition (don't touch mens dicks if you are man or unmarried woman, don't eat cheese on the third tuesday in september if the sun is shining and your name is Jeffrey etc etc) with REAL morals (don't kill, don't steal, care for the poor and sick etc etc)
secondly there is some evidence to suggest that homosexuality apparently has a biological - perhaps even genetic- origin - so how can nature be immoral?
What about murder?
What about murder?
If by what you mean that murder is the preconceived intention to kill someone, then obviously any hint of morality would be a wash, reasoned or divinely inspired.
But, to ask whether or not murder can be reasoned as unacceptable without divine intervention is another question.
blah blah blah.
Since you asked for it me deah, you're officially on ignore. :thumbsup:
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 01:49 PM
What about murder?
ok - so we're agred on morality not being a valid example then - lets move on to something that is
ok - so we're agred on morality not being a valid example then - lets move on to something that is
Murder is also innate?
Lets see.
What about spirituality? Do atheists believe in the spirit?
Murder is also innate?
Lets see.
What about spirituality? Do atheists believe in the spirit?
I think most don't.. but some probably do.
What about spirituality? Do atheists believe in the spirit?
"the spirit"
One is to wonder what theists mean by "the spirit" and all it entails? When questioned, they themselves are unable to explain it beyond their own personal imaginative whims, and then expect others to "believe" in their whimsical tales. Or, they turn to their fundamental doctrines to recite rote-driven drivel that's meant to provide clarity and credibility to their fabrications.
spidergoat
05-11-08, 02:28 PM
What culture has ever thought murder was just fine?
What culture has ever thought murder was just fine?
Most of them actually; I don't know of a single culture that thinks self defence and defensive war is wrong.
Early ancestors used to bash in skulls with equanimity. The idea of killing being wrong is related to religious scriptures.
spidergoat
05-11-08, 02:49 PM
Are you equating self-defence and defensive wars with murder?
What culture felt that murder within the society was OK?
I can give you numerous examples of religion endorsing murder that was not in self-defense, many of them from the Bible.
Early ancestors used to bash in skulls with equanimity. The idea of killing being wrong is related to religious scriptures.
:roflmao:
Once again, the self-serving, narcissistic theist cannot leap beyond their one-dimensional universe as they continuously bleat their cults doctrines as the first and foremost authority for morality, ignoring all that came before as they conveniently reduce mankind to blithering imbeciles bashing in each others skulls for entertainment.
THEIR contrived god, from the many purporting the same nonsense, will save us all.
Carcano
05-11-08, 03:01 PM
What do atheists believe?
Atheists are generally folks who dont want to believe.
They want to know.
Regarding SAM's recent travesty of a thread on atheists
(here's a link so its not to be confused with any of her other recent debacles http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=80737 )
It does actually raise some interesting questions.
in that case, why drag sam into the equation?
why parade your obsession like some needy bitch?
From my "research" so far, you can rule out morality
you can rule out everything
my disbelief regarding the validity of a claim made by you is just that, disbelief
it is not an overarching philosophy that accounts for all of the cosmos and my place within it
atheism is a specific and restricted concept imposed from without
i see no reason to embrace the label that has at its root, a fallacious concept
present a valid argument for god
convert me
its what you fundies do, ja?
i dare you
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 03:24 PM
Murder is also innate?
Lets see.
What about spirituality? Do atheists believe in the spirit?
What atheists beleive in terms of religion or spirituality isn't the subject of this thread.
here's the original questions agin to save you from getting too bogged down:
In matters not relating to religion - such as politics and science - why would an atheist have a different view point to a theist.
Would that differing viewpoint stem obligately from their athesim?
What examples can you give of an atheist point of view on a non religious topic that stems speciffically from a person's atheism?
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 03:32 PM
in that case, why drag sam into the equation?
why parade your obsession like some needy bitch?
play nice gustav - SAM maybe an intellectual weakling but there's no need to cuss
I can give you numerous examples of religion endorsing murder that was not in self-defense, many of them from the Bible.
Fine, lets pick that. Why is "endorsing murder" wrong? By what standards?
spidergoat
05-11-08, 03:42 PM
I simply give it as an example of a commonly held moral feeling, that is independent of any particular theology. The only standard is that we can all imagine living in a society where random unjustified killing was common would be unpleasant.
Fine, lets pick that. Why is "endorsing murder" wrong? By what standards?
yours
would you approve of your murder by my hand?
I simply give it as an example of a commonly held moral feeling, that is independent of any particular theology. The only standard is that we can all imagine living in a society where random unjustified killing was common would be unpleasant.
So in your opinion, without laws, humans would be prone to random unjustified killing? But if its biological, it cannot be wrong certainly. We could just call it collateral damages.:shrug:
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 03:53 PM
Fine, lets pick that. Why is "endorsing murder" wrong? By what standards?
In human terms it can be understood in terms of evolution.
Modern humans descended from a relatively small population of humans - which probably came out of africa around 100,000 years ago - as such there is very little genetic diversity within our species - therefore by killing a member of our own species - who very likely carries many of the same genes as we do, we lessen the chances of our genes reaching the next generation.
In effect we are genetically programmed to find murder abhorrent - we never needed religion to do that for us.
play nice gustav - SAM maybe an intellectual weakling but there's no need to cuss
wtf?
a goddamn non sequiter
In effect we are genetically programmed to find murder abhorrent - we never needed religion to do that for us.
So all the animals who are close to us and who murder, as well as all soldiers, hunters and murderers and biologists who breed and dissect animals (ie murder) are mutants?
spidergoat
05-11-08, 04:02 PM
So in your opinion, without laws, humans would be prone to random unjustified killing? But if its biological, it cannot be wrong certainly. We could just call it collateral damages.:shrug:
No, in fact most people do not think random unjustified killing is right. That is why this feeling is codified into laws, so that killers will be punished. The deterent effect of these laws is debateable, but at least those few people that are completely immoral or asocial are separated from the rest of us.
So all the animals who are close to us and who murder, as well as all soldiers, hunters and murderers and biologists who breed and dissect animals (ie murder) are mutants?
good one
patel's moronic assertion deserves that bit of claptrap
No, in fact most people do not think random unjustified killing is right. That is why this feeling is codified into laws, so that killers will be punished. The deterent effect of these laws is debateable, but at least those few people that are completely immoral or asocial are separated from the rest of us.
Depends on how you define random unjistified killing. Is the Iraq war justified killing? Is Afghanistan? Will those who are sent to kill there be separated from the rest of us as pariahs?
If those people are following the urges of their biology, why is it wrong?
spidergoat
05-11-08, 04:08 PM
Even if one does not agree, there are possible rational justifications for the Iraq War. The ostensibly religious people in the White House felt that it was justified. I do not. Religion does not seem to resolve this moral question.
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 04:10 PM
So all the animals who are close to us and who murder, as well as all soldiers, hunters and murderers and biologists who breed and dissect animals (ie murder) are mutants?
No - its actually the same mechanism at work - while we co-operate and protect those who are "like us", we tend to be much more defensive towrds those we see as "not like us" - basically the greater the genetic divide between us and another member of our species or us and another species altogether, the less altruistic we behave towards them.
Of course these instincts can be made to misfire.
For example many regimes and conflicts were incited by various leaders de-humanising thier opponents - the japanese justified their wars against the chinese on the basis that the chinese were sub-human (their view not mine) - hitler did much the same with jews and gypsies - its much easier to coldbloodedly kill someone if you view them to be of a differnt species altogether.
Likewise in military training - soldiers spend lots of time shoving bayonets into straw dummies - in an effort to condition soliders into beleiving that when the time comes, they'll do it to a fellow human being with the same kind of disspasionate air.
On a dfifferent note, we tend to like and try to protect animals which have anthropomorphic charateristics - dolphins like us are intelligent co-operative and famillial for example so they receive a rather disporportionate amount of attention from the public when it comes to conservation.
Even if one does not agree, there are possible rational justifications for the Iraq War. The ostensibly religious people in the White House felt that it was justified. I do not. Religion does not seem to resolve this moral question.
Biology would. Looking after the needs of self and same as self or kin over and above those of others is a natural biological phenomenon. Religion would actually be against this, as faith demands that God will provide as long as you follow the commandments and not covet or kill or steal.
No - its actually the same mechanism at work - while we co-operate and protect those who are "like us", we tend to be much more defensive towrds those we see as "not like us" - basically the greater the genetic divide between us and another member of our species or us and another species altogether, the less altruistic we behave towards them.
Of course these instincts can be made to misfire.
For example many regimes and conflicts were incited by various leaders de-humanising thier opponents - the japanese justified their wars against the chinese on the basis that the chinese were sub-human (their view not mine) - hitler did much the same with jews and gypsies - its much easier to coldbloodedly kill someone if you view them to be of a differnt species altogether.
Likewise in military training - soldiers spend lots of time shoving bayonets into straw dummies - in an effort to condition soliders into beleiving that when the time comes, they'll do it to a fellow human being with the same kind of disspasionate air.
On a dfifferent note, we tend to like and try to protect animals which have anthropomorphic charateristics - dolphins like us are intelligent co-operative and famillial for example so they receive a rather disporportionate amount of attention from the public when it comes to conservation.
Correct, so all the murderers are doing what comes naturally.
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 04:18 PM
good one
patel's moronic assertion deserves that bit of claptrap
sorry - didn't mean to make it look like an assertion when there is in fact PILES of research to back it up - here's a quick starter course for ya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_relationship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics
peer review will take me longer to dig up but if you ahve any specific questions I'll do my best for you
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 04:21 PM
Correct, so all the murderers are doing what comes naturally.
in a way yes - basically if you impose unnatural values upon someone - by say converting them to a religion - or building inflated ideals of nationalism on someone - you can make them do things against their normal moral nature by causing that same altruistic mechanism to misfire
/eek (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=30900)
Ever since our ancestors, the macrotermitine termites, achieved ten-kilogram weight and larger brains during their rapid evolution through the late Tertiary Period, and learned to write with pheromonal script, termitic scholarship has elevated and refined ethical philosophy. It is now possible to express the imperatives of moral behavior with precision. These imperatives are self-evident and universal. They are the very essence of termitity. They include the love of darkness and of the deep, saprophytic, basidiomycetic penetralia of the soil; the centrality of colony life amidst the richness of war and trade with other colonies, the sanctity of the physiological caste system; and the evil of personal rights (the colony is ALL!); our deep love for the royal siblings allowed to reproduce; the joy of chemical song; the aesthetic pleasure and deep social satisfaction of eating feces from nestmates' anuses after the shedding of our skins; and the ecstasy of cannibalism and surrender of our own bodies when we are sick or injured (it is more blessed to be eaten than to eat).
the termite's way of life (http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/bookauth/eow3.htm)
;)
spidergoat
05-11-08, 04:24 PM
Biology would. Looking after the needs of self and same as self or kin over and above those of others is a natural biological phenomenon. Religion would actually be against this, as faith demands that God will provide as long as you follow the commandments and not covet or kill or steal.
Religion is vague on the specifics. Conservative Protestants are against abortion, stem cell research that involves embryos, removing life support from dying people, but they support capital punishment. Catholics and liberal Christians are against capital punishment.
Moses is supposed to have ordered 3,000 men to be put to death on God's authority.
And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
Exodus 32:27
The second Commandment says:
Make no images of anything in heaven, Earth, or the Sea.
But no one really follows that.
I'll do my best for you
nice. my prior post had an eek linked to an old thread where i spout off on much the same thing
yet
i doubt if this "we are genetically programmed to find murder abhorrent" can ever be proven. it is a disposition and nailing down the source of the imperative can be tough
the best i (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=480963&postcount=16) managed was....
i hold that a basic morality has been hardwired in to our systems. it is the means by which we ensure our survival as a species. witness the altruism involved b/w a parent and child. the co-operation within groups/species/etc these tactics enhance survival. it is instinctive.
basic or rudimentary is the key
even then the nature/nurture dichotomy is not entirely dispensed with
Religion is vague on the specifics. Conservative Protestants are against abortion, stem cell research that involves embryos, removing life support from dying people, but they support capital punishment. Catholics and liberal Christians are against capital punishment.
Moses is supposed to have ordered 3,000 men to be put to death on God's authority.
And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
Exodus 32:27
And so what? Biologically, they were killing foreigners and protecting their kin. The Israelis are still doing it. Shared ethnicity as a basis of segregation and discrimination. If its right now, why should it be wrong then? Nothing scientifically wrong with protecting your shared genes. One could argue that as progeny of a tribe, they are protecting their shared genetic heritage.
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 04:28 PM
nice. my prior post had an eek linked to an old thread where i spout off on much the same thing
yet
i doubt if this "we are genetically programmed to find murder abhorrent" can ever be proven. it is a disposition and nailing down the source of the imperative can be tough
However the evidence for it from genetics and ethology is good - proven? no - likely? yes - very
spidergoat
05-11-08, 04:30 PM
So what is the difference between the morals of the religious and non-religious again? By our modern standards, acts of the religious have been abhorrent, and they did so because of religion, nothing else.
in a way yes - basically if you impose unnatural values upon someone - by say converting them to a religion - or building inflated ideals of nationalism on someone - you can make them do things against their normal moral nature by causing that same altruistic mechanism to misfire
The murderers are being altruistic to themselves first, how is this a misfire? Even an animal (sans religion) would, if push came to shove, kill for himself.
Carcano
05-11-08, 04:31 PM
therefore by killing a member of our own species - who very likely carries many of the same genes as we do, we lessen the chances of our genes reaching the next generation.
Humans are the ONLY animals who do kill members of their own species...in large numbers.
So what is the difference between the morals of the religious and non-religious again? By our modern standards, acts of the religious have been abhorrent, and they did so because of religion, nothing else.
I don't see it that way. Religion expanded the tribe. instead of the family, it was the tribe under religion that was protected. That was a step up and the bigger the tribe became the less chances of people murdering people of the same tribe. Except of course, those still governed by biological instincts above tribe morality, the ones who like the murderers in prison today, could not see beyond their own preservation and disowned the tribe.
However the evidence for it from genetics and ethology is good - proven? no - likely? yes - very
i'll take all the citations you got
I don't see it that way. Religion expanded the tribe. instead of the family, it was the tribe under religion that was protected. That was a step up and the bigger the tribe became the less chances of people murdering people of the same tribe. Except of course, those still governed by biological instincts above tribe morality, the ones who like the murderers in prison today, could not see beyond their own preservation and disowned the tribe.
Why can't you just carry on believing whatever seems right to you and stop using strawmen to make some point or another, which makes many of us embarrassed on your behalf.
Your obsession with theism/ atheism suggests that you have doubts aboput your beliefs , which you wish to have expelled. Perehaps part of you is saying I believe in God while another part is asking am I sure ?
Its very kind of you to be embarassed on my behalf. However, I believe I am old enough to take my knocks. Do not trouble yourself on my account. :)
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 04:53 PM
i'll take all the citations you got
start off with the wiki ones for the time being - there's a good week's worth of reading there - if you have specific questions that arise from that I'll do my best for you - although my speciality is marine ecology not ethology
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 05:03 PM
The murderers are being altruistic to themselves first, how is this a misfire? Even an animal (sans religion) would, if push came to shove, kill for himself.
Its a missfire because you are killing someone who is extremely closely related to you (even the most distantly related human to you, is still in fact a very close relative)
Is a missfire because kin selection / kin altruism is being used to circumvent the normal operation of that same function - so while people like me know that all of the human race are one - regardless of race colour and religion - other people will use twist that mechanism to make people beleive we are not, and hence conflict arises.
try this for some of the basics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton%27s_rule
Its a missfire because you are killing someone who is extremely closely related to you (even the most distantly related human to you, is still in fact a very close relative)
You're assuming they should be concerned about others at all, above themselves.
iceaura
05-11-08, 05:17 PM
The label "murder" assumes a moral stance, in common with the labeler and and the reader.
So if an atheist knows what a theist is talking about, when the theist says "murder", there is no essential difference between them in their moral stance.
I know of no human culture, atheist or otherwise, that fails to distinguish murder from other causing of death.
If a mother eats her baby because she is hungry, is it murder?
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 05:19 PM
You're assuming they should be concerned about others at all, above themselves.
No I am assming that the same behaviours as determined by their genes apply to humans in the same way they apply to other animals - not a big assumption at all really
try this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
No I am assming that the same behaviours as determined by their genes apply to humans in the same way they apply to other animals - not a big assumption at all really
try this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
Does this apply to mothers eating their babies in times of food shortage?
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 05:25 PM
Does this apply to mothers eating their babies in times of food shortage?
I'm getting a bit bored of spoonfeeding you - you've got the link, you tell me
I'm getting a bit bored of spoonfeeding you - you've got the link, you tell me
Its pretty widespread across the animal kingdom and is a pretty cheap way of getting nutrients and since we are applying animal behaviour to human behaviour, why. sharks are closer to humans than ants and they start eating their siblings in the womb. So why not the mother with too many children start cooking the weaker ones for teh others?:shrug:
start off with the wiki ones for the time being - there's a good week's worth of reading there - if you have specific questions that arise from that I'll do my best for you - although my speciality is marine ecology not ethology
lookee here mr
"we are genetically programmed to find murder abhorrent"
give me the specific citation
you dare offer me goddamn primers when i had dealt with this shit 5 years ago? did you not see link?
you further dare condescend my ass?
/snicker
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 05:36 PM
The label "murder" assumes a moral stance, in common with the labeler and and the reader.
So if an atheist knows what a theist is talking about, when the theist says "murder", there is no essential difference between them in their moral stance.
I know of no human culture, atheist or otherwise, that fails to distinguish murder from other causing of death.
excellent point - and very well put - and it finally brings us back on topic
so now that we have discounted morals in genral and murder specifically as an area where atheists do not have a different viewpoint that stems specifically from atheism.
so we are now back to the original questions again:
In matters not relating to religion - such as politics and science - why would an atheist have a different view point to a theist?
Would that differing viewpoint stem obligately from their athesim?
What examples can you give of an atheist point of view on a non religious topic that stems speciffically from a person's atheism?
Apparently the idea is first decide the hypothesis, look for evidence to prove it or attempt to disprove any competing theories by selectively adopting only that evidence that conforms to the hypothesis. Falsifiability is a non sequitor. Interesting.
synthesizer-patel
05-11-08, 05:41 PM
lookee here mr
"we are genetically programmed to find murder abhorrent"
give me the specific citation
you dare offer me a goddamn primer when i had dealt with this shit 5 years ago? did you not see link?
you further dare condescend my ass?
/snicker
apologies - you were acting stupid so I assumed you were - hence me starting you on the basics.
do you have something like an athens account which allows you to access online journals etc?
If you do I'll see what I can dig up for you as I don't tend to bother to store peer review stuff locally - expect a wait though - I'm watching Dr Who :D
apologies - you were acting stupid so I assumed you were - hence me starting you on the basics.
do you have something like an athens account which allows you to access online journals etc?
If you do I'll see what I can dig up for you as I don't tend to bother to store peer review stuff locally - expect a wait though - I'm watching Dr Who :D
you cannot
it does not exist
murder? abhorrence? gene?
are you insane?
i have access to everything
[QUOTE=Carcano;1855670]Humans are the ONLY animals who do kill members of their own species...in large numbers.[/QUO
This is a common fallacy. Chimps sometimes kill other chimps and eat them. Many animals, e.g.,fish eat their young.
spidergoat
05-11-08, 05:59 PM
Its pretty widespread across the animal kingdom and is a pretty cheap way of getting nutrients and since we are applying animal behaviour to human behaviour, why. sharks are closer to humans than ants and they start eating their siblings in the womb. So why not the mother with too many children start cooking the weaker ones for teh others?:shrug:
Parents of mammals make a huge investment in resources in their children, especially humans. Kids share half of each parent's genes. It makes more sense to feed yourself to your kids. Which is kind of what mothers do when they nurse. What really happens when animal mothers eat the kids is that they reduce their litter to a smaller number that they can then invest in.
That being said, I don't think it's a good idea to derive one's moral rules from nature. I am suggesting that morality is an evolved trait, not that the evolved traits of other animals should be a guide to what we do.
Mice eat their kids all the time. We have to watch them carefully to make sure we are present when they give birth. One time we did an underfeeding study and were supposed to look at metabolic effects on second generation rat babies but the mothers ate them as they were born and we could not save enough kids to get a sample.
Carcano
05-11-08, 09:15 PM
Chimps sometimes kill other chimps and eat them. Many animals, e.g.,fish eat their young.
Humans dont kill their own species for food...something that happens among other animals very rarely.
Humans dont kill their own species for food...something that happens among other animals very rarely.
So why is there a taboo? Because ritual cannibalism is not rare.
Morality is part of human nature, atheist or not, In order to live in this world you have to make choices that are due to your moral.
There is no real difference between atheist and theist, both believe in something (god or scientific realism).
It is true that an atheist that believe in the supremacy of science, because of the pictures science give us of the world, he should not bother of morals, because, the world is governed by amoral (i do not mean immoral) physical laws and any decision he will make is becaus of his gene and the environment but he also know that the morals he has been educated with has evolved from natural laws and if it has survived until now, it is probably good to use it.
In other words, while knowing that ultimately (in nature), there is no moral, he knows that in order to survive ha has better to follow one. He has better to believe in something ;-)
Remark: It is one reason religion are powerful: the belief in religion is fit (in evlutionary term) for organism to survive and reproduce in humans societies :D
If we can imagine someone without moral (I am not talking of a guy with a deviated moral that for example feel that killing is good instead of bad), I think he will be not recognizable as such (without moral) because he will still follow the physical laws, only inside himself he would be free from sorrow. I think it is what Krishna was trying to teach to Arjuna in the battlefield of the Mahabharata.
Humans dont kill their own species for food...something that happens among other animals very rarely.
Look up cannibal !
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.