What Atheists do and do not beleive
- Thread starter synthesizer-patel
- Start date
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
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's_rule
You're assuming they should be concerned about others at all, above themselves.
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.
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.
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?
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:
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
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.
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
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
you cannot
it does not exist
murder? abhorrence? gene?
are you insane?
i have access to everything
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
Valued Senior Member
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.