Today is National Ask an Atheist Day

[moevillini]

The most basic Christian concept since Constantine and the Holy Trinity attempted to rationalize the Christian God with Genesis creation would claim God is the original cause.

Well if you're saying God caused himself (herself/itself) than that would be a circular argument.

(note: not a question!)

 

[One Brow]

well at least you didn't resort to the Straw One Brow observation. . . . so where does human nature come from????

That is a great question. I don't have more than a guess.

For me, the most essential parts of human nature come from our history of being tribal mammals. It's one reason we founds wolves so domesticable: they were top-level omnivores, and so many of their behaviors evolved in similar ways to our behavior. So, you have most pack members defending the pack as whole, fights for dominance, the occasional turf war, etc. In many ways, we're just smarter dogs.

 

[babe]

The way I see my atheism is not as a declaration that I know God does not exist. I start from the beginning with a blank slate. I have no notion of God. Going from that point the notion of God is introduced. I say, "This claim that God exists is extraordinary! I would like to see what reasons there are to believe that this is true." And that's where I'm at, waiting to see what reasons there are to believe that it is true. That, to me, is a state of atheism. I do not yet believe for lack of any substantive argument in favor of a positive claim that God exists.

well, the logic inherent in the construction of the term says it well enough. . . . an absence of theism. .. . meaning generally any possible theism. . . .

"a reason to believe" is what some people ask for when believing a lie. . . . I don't insist on reason to validate faith. I consider the concepts as pertaining to specific methods of thought and emotion, and not necessarily valid in both. It's like using an electron microscope to look for neutrons. . . . .

 

[babe]

Well if you're saying God caused himself (herself/itself) than that would be a circular argument.

(note: not a question!)

I realize that. Mormons don't necessarily think of "God" as the original first Cause, but specifically (used to, at least) stated that there was no beginning and will be no end. That there are endless cycles of creation ongoing. . . . defining the power of God as the process of creation. So while early Christians at least addressed the ultimate cosmological connection and attributed everything to "God", Mormons actually didn't even get to that. . . . .

 

[Hartsock]

atheists have no positive value called "respect", and no concept of "tolerance" towards disbelievers in their presumed "right way". You can't find one who will just laugh and say "who the hell really knows anything?" what you do have is pretending atheists who are loaded with christian values nevertheless, but don't want to recognize them as such.

Why do "values" have to be christian? Almost every single christian value can is also a value in every other religion on earth. I would say I'm agnostic, because who the hell really does know? Certainly not christians, jews, muslims, buddhists, athiests, or scientoligists. I take value in being a good person, in real life at least, not in this lame *** forum.

 

[babe]

That is a great question. I don't have more than a guess.

For me, the most essential parts of human nature come from our history of being tribal mammals. It's one reason we founds wolves so domesticable: they were top-level omnivores, and so many of their behaviors evolved in similar ways to our behavior. So, you have most pack members defending the pack as whole, fights for dominance, the occasional turf war, etc. In many ways, we're just smarter dogs.

now now. . . . let's not degrade dogs to that extent. I openly question whether I am smarter than my dogs. . . . or not. For example, there was a movie I've never seen, but I see a trailer of it quite often, with a quip at the end of it:

"You don't see us picking up their poop". Spoken, supposedly, by a pretty smart dog.

 

[babe]

Why do "values" have to be christian? Almost every single christian value can is also a value in every other religion on earth. I would say I'm agnostic, because who the hell really does know? Certainly not christians, jews, muslims, buddhists, athiests, or scientoligists. I take value in being a good person, in real life at least, not in this lame *** forum.

so what if christians borrowed a lot of stuff. . . .. or vice versa. . . . .

but the bolded part makes you one of the wiser folks around here.

 

[Hartsock]

so what if christians borrowed a lot of stuff. . . .. or vice versa. . . . .

but the bolded part makes you one of the wiser folks around here.

I have no problem with the borrowing, but calling it "christian values" opposed to "values" is a stretch. Good is good regardless of what beliefs you have.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Primates are generally social by nature, likely due to the fact that primates are inherently weak compared to other animals. Only physical trait humans have that is top notch is distance running. Thus, survival requires more than physical dominance. Cooperation became important since the health of the unit, whatever it was, was more important than the health of the individual. That's where the concept of "values" come from. Human nature is a mix of the concept of "values" that were initially bred in the ancestry of the human line and common animal, and life in its entirety for that matter, behavior which is very self oriented, looking out for one's own survival and comfortableness.

 

[One Brow]

I know compared to other primates, humans are weak. However, I'm not sure that applies to primates generally. I've read that two chimpanzees are more than a match for a leopard, for example.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I know compared to other primates, humans are weak. However, I'm not sure that applies to primates generally. I've read that two chimpanzees are more than a match for a leopard, for example.

Leopards are the smallest of the big cats and it takes two chimpanzees (second strongest primate) to match up favorably. Kind of helps my argument, doesn't it?

 

[One Brow]

Leopards are the smallest of the big cats and it takes two chimpanzees (second strongest primate) to match up favorably. Kind of helps my argument, doesn't it?

I was thinking in terms of strength by weight, as opposed to overall strength. You very seldom hear ants described as weak, even though a chimpanzee can take on several dozen ants. Even thought they are the smallest of the big cats, a typical adult male leopard outweighs a typical male chimpanzee.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

One animal at 140 versus two at 100 pounds. Two humans might have the advantage, there.

But in any case, we could take this in all sorts of directions. My point is that primates, in general (orangutans are an exception, for example) have had to rely more on group think and cooperation than other animals on the same "plane," if you will, on the food chain/evolutionary ladder or other type of misnomers and thus once humans because self-aware, those concepts were thought of as "values."

 

[Sandy Braille]

One animal at 140 versus two at 100 pounds. Two humans might have the advantage, there.

But in any case, we could take this in all sorts of directions. My point is that primates, in general (orangutans are an exception, for example) have had to rely more on group think and cooperation than other animals on the same "plane," if you will, on the food chain/evolutionary ladder or other type of misnomers and thus once humans because self-aware, those concepts were thought of as "values."

So your point is that, essentially, any large-ish animal with a lack of strength for its size, and fear of predators will consistently have high cognitive function correlated with a slow development of human values?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

So your point is that, essentially, any large-ish animal with a lack of strength for its size, and fear of predators will consistently have high cognitive function correlated with a slow development of human values?

Not necessarily. That is the branch human ancestors ended up on, quite a unique one, actually. Becoming nocturnal, thriving in harsher conditions, becoming bigger and stronger are examples of other branches. The human branch, emphasizing intelligence over physical attributes, is the only branch that has allowed its species to dominate the planet over, terrestrially anyway.

 

[One Brow]

One animal at 140 versus two at 100 pounds. Two humans might have the advantage, there.

Maybe. My understanding is that a typical chimpanzee has about 4 times the strength of a typical adult human of the same weight, due to better muscle attachment points.

But in any case, we could take this in all sorts of directions. My point is that primates, in general (orangutans are an exception, for example) have had to rely more on group think and cooperation than other animals on the same "plane," if you will, on the food chain/evolutionary ladder or other type of misnomers and thus once humans because self-aware, those concepts were thought of as "values."

I largely agree with you there.

 

[scootsy]

I have actually spent a large amount of time creating lists of animals I could kill in a tooth/claw battle for survival. I have most cats on there up to before the super heavy cats such as tiger/lion. Cougar would go 50/50, but I think I could take one. Larger animals like rhinos, elephants and bears are the few in which I would have an agility advantage. My aim would always be to take hold of their back and choke them out. Limited dexterity when swiping behind their heads would minimize the amount of damage I took while completing the kill. It simply depends on my comparative advantages on how I go about accomplishing that.

 

[babe]

Maybe. My understanding is that a typical chimpanzee has about 4 times the strength of a typical adult human of the same weight, due to better muscle attachment points.



I largely agree with you there.

OK, I get how sweeping generalizations can sorta fill in all the blanks unless you really care to look at the molecular level of structure, function, and chemical transmitters and electric phenomena that ultimately has to be underlying "values". How about looking at animals for similarly general sweeping correspondences in their behaviors? yah, so mosquitos are heavily into chemical senses and can say smell sweat from a warm-blooded mammal a mile away..... or more. . . . and piranhas are pretty much automatic feeders following chemical gradients as well. . . .but I have birds nesting in my trees who will dive bomb me if their fledgling is on the ground anywhere near where I'm heading, and them seem to have every "moral vindication" for their fury. . . ..

so anyways, have fun guys. It all sounds good. So just ignore everything else you see that doesn't fit in, OK???

 

[One Brow]

so anyways, have fun guys. It all sounds good. So just ignore everything else you see that doesn't fit in, OK???

Could you be a little more specific? For example, a list of mammals that form small-medium groups and don't exhibit many of the behaviors similar to human morality?

 

[MVP]

I have actually spent a large amount of time creating lists of animals I could kill in a tooth/claw battle for survival. I have most cats on there up to before the super heavy cats such as tiger/lion. Cougar would go 50/50, but I think I could take one. Larger animals like rhinos, elephants and bears are the few in which I would have an agility advantage. My aim would always be to take hold of their back and choke them out. Limited dexterity when swiping behind their heads would minimize the amount of damage I took while completing the kill. It simply depends on my comparative advantages on how I go about accomplishing that.

Sorry, but you are delusional if you think you would even have 1% chance vs cougar one on one. Rhino, elephant and bear? Man, who are you kidding? You think you can choke elephant or rhino? Chimp would make an easy kill out of you by the way.