What type of world will a 90% atheist world be?

[ThinkDifferent]

:confused:

We are currently living in a 90% theist world. But as science answers more and more questions, it can be expected that this percentage is bound to change in favor of atheism.

I would like to invite you all to use your creativity and predict how a 90% atheist world would be?

Will people be more moral or less?
What will be the postive & negative developments?
Will there be more peace as religion related tensions disappear? etc.

Please fell free to post anything and everything that you can predict for an atheist dominated world.

Also, will the world ever become 90% atheist at all?

[Seb_Maya]

I think that science seems is giving us many answers but these in turn can lead to even more mysterious questions. e.g in fields such as particle physics and cosmology. I believe that there will be a move away from organised religion as it is slowly but surely unravelled, however a massive move to atheism would be unlikely unless "definite proof" for the non-existence of God was found.

[stretch]

I think that there would be no discernible effect on morality.

And people would find other way to satisfy the seemingly insatiable drive towards 'tribalism' of some sort ... so the world would not be any more or less peaceful.

[wordfailure]

I agree, stretch. Religious/metaphysical/philosophical behavioral phenomena are manifestations of human nature, IMHO, not the reverse. In other words, people are people regardless of religious affiliation or its lack.

[Silent Acorns]

I think the primary difference would be that we would lose one very big cause of suffering: people fighting over who has got the One True God. That would be a big change for the better. But by itself, it won't change the reality of scarce resources. People will still fight over oil, and power ... people will still have plenty of reasons to get jealous and angry.

In short, the world would be noticably better, but still far from perfect.

[Primal]

The world is not 90 percent theist. China is an atheist state, Communist nations are as well(and they contain a sizeable portion of the world's population), Buddhists are atheists, as are some Taosists etc. Having the majority of China alone makes it impossible that theists compose 90 percent of the world's population.

[Primal]

If anything atheism alone would remove a problem, not necessarily create a solution i.e. Stalin. A better question would be what if the world was 90 percent rational humanist? To this I'm willing to bet a hell of a lot better.

[Philosoft]

This is probably better off in GRD...

[atheist_in_foxhole]

I suspect that an atheist world have a lot less violence and a lot less pollution, and I think that there would be some tremendous advances in science without the roadblocks that the religionists keep putting up. In fact, we'd probably be headed to the stars.

But at the moment only cemeteries are 100 percent atheist and there's not much going on. :D

[Amie]

Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole
I suspect that an atheist world have a lot less violence and a lot less pollution, and I think that there would be some tremendous advances in science without the roadblocks that the religionists keep putting up. In fact, we'd probably be headed to the stars. No, no no dear atheist how very misguided of you.

[Mad Kally]

Tell that to Christopher Reeves.

[atheist_in_foxhole]

And tell it to the scientists and other "heretics" who were tortured and killed when the Holy Church ruled the world. But you can't tell them. They were murdered by fanatical religionists.

[Seraphim]

I would like to invite you all to use your creativity and predict how a 90% atheist world would be?

My reply : It will be a dead world ... with people walking around like machines, accepting data without bother processing it since it is already processed by some "Intelligent" unit called science which is mastered by another bunch of machines called Scientist.

Will people be more moral or less?

My reply : Less ... since everyone wants to have as much action as possible since they know they will die at any moment.

What will be the postive & negative developments?

My reply : Cannot be determined ... since development usually done by both Theists and Atheism alike.

Will there be more peace as religion related tensions disappear? etc.

My reply : No peace. Religious wars will be replaced by urban wars where people will fight to get more than their neighbours (since they want to enjoy more before they die).

[JEST2ASK]

Originally posted by stretch
I think that there would be no discernible effect on morality.

And people would find other way to satisfy the seemingly insatiable drive towards 'tribalism' of some sort ... so the world would not be any more or less peaceful. :cool:

We (Humans) will always find ways to create Them vs US*.
I agree basic morality would not change however I would hope it would be a more rational world. However I am not to sure that unrestrained technology would be the best result




*not to be confused with U.S.

[JEST2ASK]

Originally posted by Seraphim
I would like to invite you all to use your creativity and predict how a 90% atheist world would be?

My reply : It will be a dead world ... with people walking around like machines, accepting data without bother processing it since it is already processed by some "Intelligent" unit called science which is mastered by another bunch of machines called Scientist.

Will people be more moral or less?

My reply : Less ... since everyone wants to have as much action as possible since they know they will die at any moment.

What will be the postive & negative developments?

My reply : Cannot be determined ... since development usually done by both Theists and Atheism alike.

Will there be more peace as religion related tensions disappear? etc.

My reply : No peace. Religious wars will be replaced by urban wars where people will fight to get more than their neighbours (since they want to enjoy more before they die).

Funny how a Christian Nation is the World's number one consumer. Funny how a nation founded on "Religious" tolerance is so intolerant. Funny how Christians seem to do as much to prolong their lives as any non-believer.

However thank you for you insights. Please Pray for us.

[philechat]

What we need are non-exclusive religions, not universal atheism. Atheism is not exactly the most optimistic philosophy existed on this earth, and given that many people appear to be less independent in thought and decision, atheism might not be the best solution to say an average person's mental health.

More public education, and perhaps a more tolerant kind of religion would help. And let people decide their beliefs for themselves. I have not much faith in dreaming for a beloved "atheist society".

[Seraphim]

Funny how a Christian Nation is the World's number one consumer. Funny how a nation founded on "Religious" tolerance is so intolerant. Funny how Christians seem to do as much to prolong their lives as any non-believer.

My reply :
1. Consumer exists because there is someone willing to sell something (demand exist), don't see what so funny about that or why it is related to Christianity (or any other religion/teaching for that matter)

2. Tolerance or intolerance is policy made by MEN, not God. Your leader will say they are Christians and they are tolerance toward non-Christians today, and a year from now, they could wage war against non-believers.

3. EVERYONE wants to live for a long time, only difference is that some wish to live in the next world by thinking this world is not important while others thinks this world is important as stepping stone.

However thank you for you insights. Please Pray for us.

My reply : You're welcome. Praying won't do anything for anyone if we don't do anything. God doesn't help anyone if the person doesn't make the first move toward helping themselves.

[JEST2ASK]

Originally posted by Seraphim

My reply :
1. Consumer exists because there is someone willing to sell something (demand exist), don't see what so funny about that or why it is related to Christianity (or any other religion/teaching for that matter)

2. Tolerance or intolerance is policy made by MEN, not God. Your leader will say they are Christians and they are tolerance toward non-Christians today, and a year from now, they could wage war against non-believers.

3. EVERYONE wants to live for a long time, only difference is that some wish to live in the next world by thinking this world is not important while others thinks this world is important as stepping stone.

[b] However thank you for you insights. Please Pray for us.

My reply : You're welcome. Praying won't do anything for anyone if we don't do anything. God doesn't help anyone if the person doesn't make the first move toward helping themselves.

Priorities ... if the majority of Christians would practice what they profess ... I find it difficult to believe that this country would be as it is.

For example it seems that there is a movement to convince Christians not to buy SUV's or other upscale vehicles .... Check your church parking lot this Sunday and see how many are for sale.

[Rhea]

The world is not 90 percent theist. China is an atheist state, Communist nations are as well(and they contain a sizeable portion of the world's population), Buddhists are atheists, as are some Taosists etc. Having the majority of China alone makes it impossible that theists compose 90 percent of the world's population. You've got some studying to do. China may have a secular or even Atheist government, but the people sure as hell aren't atheists. They are one of the most superstitious populations on the planet. That ain't atheist. As for "communist nations", do you mean like Catholic Cuba?

You've got some studying to do, grasshopper.

I suspect it would be at least marginally more peaceful and more moral. There is a certain mandate that religion provides to people's intolerance. I agree we'd find a way to have tribalism, but it wouldn't be rooted in TRUTH and would loose some of its oomph.

Plus, without religion the population would go down, easing probalems of resources and even greed. IMO.

[Seraphim]

Priorities ... if the majority of Christians would practice what they profess ... I find it difficult to believe that this country would be as it is.

My reply : If you're looking for equal rights for all and things like fairness ... sorry, you won't find it among Humans ... at least in this century anyway.

You think anyone will support a group (of any following) if they (the leaders) came out and say that the other group next to them have equal rights as they do?

For example it seems that there is a movement to convince Christians not to buy SUV's or other upscale vehicles .... Check your church parking lot this Sunday and see how many are for sale.

My reply : Why's that? God only permits entry to heaven for those who died in accidents while driving SUVs nowadays? :rolleyes: Who comes out with all this crap anyway?

PS : Malaysia don't have much SUVs on the road, got another type of car called Proton (Yes ... like the charged particle) - a locally made (about 80 - 90% of it anyway) vehicle. Government do encourage Malaysians to buy it but I have yet to hear at "fitrah" (religious orders) concerning the buying Proton cars only.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Originally posted by ThinkDifferent

Please fell free to post anything and everything that you can predict for an atheist dominated world.


Personally, I don't think the world would be that different. Being an atheist doesn't make you immune to greed, evil, dogmatism, and hatred. Stalinism is an example.

It certainly doesn't make you immune to pseudoscience or wacky beliefs either. Look at the Raelians!

[JEST2ASK]

Originally posted by Seraphim
Priorities
[b] For example it seems that there is a movement to convince Christians not to buy SUV's or other upscale vehicles .... Check your church parking lot this Sunday and see how many are for sale.

My reply : Why's that? God only permits entry to heaven for those who died in accidents while driving SUVs nowadays? :rolleyes: Who comes out with all this crap anyway?

PS : Malaysia don't have much SUVs on the road, got another type of car called Proton (Yes ... like the charged particle) - a locally made (about 80 - 90% of it anyway) vehicle. Government do encourage Malaysians to buy it but I have yet to hear at "fitrah" (religious orders) concerning the buying Proton cars only.

The movement is based on the idea of good stewardship ....

and being ecologically responsible ....

[-RRH-]

Hard to say. Theism affects different people differently.

Maybe less war. I can't really say how many wars have been fought for religious reasons, probably not a lot.

I say this because usually so-called "religious" wars also served more secular purposes for the politicians behind them.

But the politicians prefer the religious reasons, because they often can't get support for the secular reasons. Without religious justification, I expect fewer wars to be fought.

Maybe more crime. Apparently Seraphim's religious beliefs are the only thing restraining him from a life on the wrong side of the law. Who can say how many people there are like him? I'd wager pretty low numbers, though. There's plenty of religious criminals, and atheists don't show any higher incidence of criminal behaviour.

Yes, I have seen the stats that say there are fewer atheists in prison than in the general population. But I won't go so far as to say that increased atheism will decrease the crime rate. There are other factors at play in prison, such as increased pressure to conform. (And maybe atheists just don't get caught.)

Maybe faster scientific development. Without creationists mucking around, there will be better science education. Some of the impedence to research is religiously justified, though much is reasonable caution or non-religious hysteria.

So, in all, we have fewer wars, a very small increase in crime, and better science. Overall, what I would see as an improvement. But this is all wild speculation, isn't it?

(Oh, and of course, more people will know the Truth. Can't forget that benefit, now can we?;))

[Seraphim]

The movement is based on the idea of good stewardship ....

and being ecologically responsible ....

My reply : Good stewardship? You mean "Lead others by example"?

Ecological responsiblity comes from using any product that have effect on environment, not only SUVs. Church should have put some time out of religious sermons and talk to people about having good, clean world to live in ... Hell ... shouldn't we all be doing that?

I guess the Ecological stuff I can accept easily, they shouldn't put "Christians should buy" tag on it though ...

[ThinkDifferent]

Originally posted by RRH
Hard to say. Theism affects different people differently.

Maybe less war. I can't really say how many wars have been fought for religious reasons, probably not a lot.

I say this because usually so-called "religious" wars also served more secular purposes for the politicians behind them.

But the politicians prefer the religious reasons, because they often can't get support for the secular reasons. Without religious justification, I expect fewer wars to be fought.

Maybe more crime. Apparently Seraphim's religious beliefs are the only thing restraining him from a life on the wrong side of the law. Who can say how many people there are like him? I'd wager pretty low numbers, though. There's plenty of religious criminals, and atheists don't show any higher incidence of criminal behaviour.

Yes, I have seen the stats that say there are fewer atheists in prison than in the general population. But I won't go so far as to say that increased atheism will decrease the crime rate. There are other factors at play in prison, such as increased pressure to conform. (And maybe atheists just don't get caught.)

Maybe faster scientific development. Without creationists mucking around, there will be better science education. Some of the impedence to research is religiously justified, though much is reasonable caution or non-religious hysteria.

So, in all, we have fewer wars, a very small increase in crime, and better science. Overall, what I would see as an improvement. But this is all wild speculation, isn't it?

(Oh, and of course, more people will know the Truth. Can't forget that benefit, now can we?;))


Best reply so far.

So you are basically predicting that crime at the individual level might increase slightly. I disagree. It will increase a lot. Once people realize that there are not going to be punished unless they are caught(as GOD isn't there to keep track), the crime rate is bound to increase. I agree with you when tou say that wars(organized crimes) will definitely come down. Though most wars have had a political reason so far in the history, most of them have religion being misused by leaders to gain support and create the "us vs them" hysteria.


Originally posted by Seraphim
My reply : It will be a dead world ... with people walking around like machines, accepting data without bother processing it since it is already processed by some "Intelligent" unit called science which is mastered by another bunch of machines called Scientist.

This statement is entirely true for today's theist world. Theists are walking around like machines, accepting data without bother processing it since it is already processed by some "Intelligent" unit called GOD which is mastered by another bunch of machines called PRIESTS. An atheist world will be better as there will be more questioning and not much "accepting data without bother processing" going on.

[Seraphim]

Maybe more crime. Apparently Seraphim's religious beliefs are the only thing restraining him from a life on the wrong side of the law. Who can say how many people there are like him? I'd wager pretty low numbers, though. There's plenty of religious criminals, and atheists don't show any higher incidence of criminal behaviour.

My reply : Nope ... facing all those stupid consequences of walking on the otherside of the law restraining me.

Jumping off a cliff is no big deal and hardly worthy any effect, but having to endure the pain of hitting every thing from a pebble size of a person's teeth to that of a size of a boulder makes me wonder whether it is worth doing it in the first place.

But I do agree in increase of crime in Atheist world. An atheist who doesn't believe in afterlife could easily indulge himself in a life of crime if he believe such activity will bring him more benefits (such as wealth, power etc). I mean, what is the worse that could possibly happen to him? He could die and he won't be coming back to face his actions. Isn't that worth taking risk of indulging yourself?

Oh, and of course, more people will know the Truth. Can't forget that benefit, now can we?

My reply : Truth?
If scientists now can explain ALL within this lifetime, the next generation scientists will be out of work.

If scientists in the past were so advanced in technology that their findings are accurate, then scientists in this era won't bother to rexamine their findings and scientists of the future will not bother of examining the findings we make now in this era.

Truth, my friend is what you perceive and what you understand.

[Seraphim]

This statement is entirely true for today's theist world. Theists are walking around like machines, accepting data without bother processing it since it is already processed by some "Intelligent" unit called GOD which is mastered by another bunch of machines called PRIESTS. An atheist world will be better as there will be more questioning and not much "accepting data without bother processing" going on.

My reply : Not all theists are like that, there are some who ask questions and have answers from their scriptures - Hindus and Buddhists come to the mind.

Only Abrahamic religions seems to be specialists in making close-minded people and the evidence is its history alone. Non Abrahamic religion followers attended to have a long, peaceful lives where they co-existed with everyone (Atheists included) in peace. Are you going to deny that?

Atheist world will not be better because they will be more questions asked than answers provided.
And I don't think everyone will accept a single universal answer in any topic .... have you ever come across any topic where EVERYONE in a room agreed to a certain statement in unison?

Sorry, Humans weren't made to answer questions alone, they were made to ask first. You give one answer, they will generate two more in that place.

[Fiach]

Originally posted by ThinkDifferent
:confused:

We are currently living in a 90% theist world. But as science answers more and more questions, it can be expected that this percentage is bound to change in favor of atheism.

I am not sure that this will happen. I am convinced that people do not choose to believe in gods or choose to be Atheists. Rougly 20% of Humans are atheists. I suspect that will not change much except local areas of higher or lower density. Brain structure is genetically determined. I don't think we will evolve fast enough. In fact, that religious couples have many times more children than non-theists, that will give them a population advantage as it did in early human evolution, and why humans most of them, inherited the religion gene.

I would like to invite you all to use your creativity and predict how a 90% atheist world would be?

If it happened certain things could be predicted. Atheists in general are more moral than theists. Prison statistics show that Atheists, 8% of Americans are only 0.05% of the prisoners. Atheists have the lowest divorce rates than any religious denomination, due in part to our more rational brains and the importance of our word and truth. We cannot get wrongs erased by being born again or confession. That make us behave. We also are more educated and have less need to rob or steal, and if a few do, are less likely to be caught than the religious "C" student. So the world would be more moral but society would be more dissenting and tending to anarchy. We are more moral but less obedient, less submissive to authority, and therefore likely to resist government impositon.

Will people be more moral or less?

Yes

What will be the postive & negative developments?

Positive. Great advances in science and learning, and technology. Decreased violence. Greater tolerance. Negative: less order, less discipline, less cohesiveness, less submission to authority, more arguments over scientific technicalities. Perhaps we would be more difficult to mobilise and motivate for war. Religion is a major motivator in war, without it, maybe we would be less effective against alien invaders than Christians and Muslims.[/i

Will there be more peace as religion related tensions disappear? etc.

[i]Undoubtedly.

Please fell free to post anything and everything that you can predict for an atheist dominated world.

Sorry, but sadly, I don't think it will happen. Religion evolved over 3 million years and was a factor that aided H. sapeins to eliminate his hominid rivals.

Also, will the world ever become 90% atheist at all?

Little chance of a world 90% Atheist. The majority of humans do not have frontal networking circuits sufficient and efficient enough to sift out rubbish from reallity. The Rubbish (UFOs, ESP, Talking to spirits, belief in miracles, and Christian mythology itself) will continue to get through the Bullshit filter in most people's frontal lobes.

Fiach

[echoes]

A lot of the benefits (less crime, less divorce, etc.) attributed to atheists could also be attributed to the fact that atheists are usually well educated.

Would an uneducated atheist be just as unlikely as a well educated one to get a divorce or go to prison? I would guess that they would be more likely.

Just being an atheist alone would in my estimation probably not lead to those benefits unless they were well-educated atheists as well. And I don't see the vast majority of the world becoming well educated anytime soon.

[ashibaka]

If it wasn't state-enforced atheism, 90% atheism would mean the world was 90% literate and 90% well-educated.

That would be pretty :cool:, but it is also completely impossible.

[SecularFuture]

Originally posted by Primal
The world is not 90 percent theist. China is an atheist state, Communist nations are as well(and they contain a sizeable portion of the world's population), Buddhists are atheists, as are some Taosists etc. Having the majority of China alone makes it impossible that theists compose 90 percent of the world's population.

Statistics on religion and atheism:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

And yes - secularism IS growing:
(I wonder why :D)
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_22_3.htm

[Old Man]

Originally posted by ThinkDifferent
:confused:

We are currently living in a 90% theist world.


I think there is a problem with definitions here. One can be both an atheist and a theist at the same time.

One can be a practising atheist, but outwardly maintain theist opinions.

Therefore, the fact that 90% of people maintain theist opinions does not infer that socieity will change to any great extent, if 85% of those theists already behave like atheists.

[Shake]

Seraphim said:I would like to invite you all to use your creativity and predict how a 90% atheist world would be?

My reply : It will be a dead world ... with people walking around like machines, accepting data without bother processing it since it is already processed by some "Intelligent" unit called science which is mastered by another bunch of machines called Scientist.

Will people be more moral or less?

My reply : Less ... since everyone wants to have as much action as possible since they know they will die at any moment. From Q&A #1: no, that's how theists are (in general). Following some old text because, "God says so," and their pastor, priest, etc. blindly. Most non-theists got to where they are by thinking, questioning the norm, and not blindly accepting what they are told (even by science)!

Q&A #2: Typical Xian response: atheists can't be moral! :rolleyes: What? Like the moral pedophile priests? :banghead: Whatever!

[-RRH-]

I think Fiach made a good point on the moral question. I think atheists would be more anti-authoritarian, but not any less moral. But I don't think if I can argue that atheists would be more moral. Lower crime rates among atheists can be explained by the tendency to be well educated.

But any increase in crime will not be due to lower morals, but by a refusal to bow to authority. So you would need to keep an eye out for anyone who has only been kept in check because they do what their priest (or what have you) tells them to do. I don't really know how many people that would entail. (And on the plus side, we would have fewer guilt-ridden homosexuals.)

[Athius]

First of all as Primal said it's not possible that we're living in 90% theist world, I think you're refering to 90% theist America, that number is much lower on a global scale.

Originally posted by ashibaka
If it wasn't state-enforced atheism, 90% atheism would mean the world was 90% literate and 90% well-educated.

That would be pretty :cool:, but it is also completely impossible.

This was the mistake I made at first, you would first think that everyone would be intelligent and smart, but that's not true, the first generation maybe, but after that intelligence would't play a role anymore, because as children of the first generation are born, the atheist parents tell them from the beginning that atheism is the way, and so they wouldn't necessarily go through what we went through, to struggle their way to the truth in an environment that tells them the opposite. Atheists today must be very sure of their beliefs to stand up against a world of religion and promises of hell, etc. which means they came to their conclusions by research, logic, and having intelligence. But if the environment is atheistic from the beginning, it would just be a norm, do you understand what I'm saying? Just to give you another example, Galaleo was one of few people in his time to realize that the earth orbited around the sun and not vice versa, he was intelligent at the time, but today almost everyone knows that, does that mean everyone is intelligent? In other words people take it for granted.

To answer the original question, I think a 90% atheistic world would be only slightly better than what we have today. There would no longer be wars over religions and deaths resulting from religious superstitions, but human nature would still be the same human nature. People would still act the same way. Even today you don't see many people who take the Bible, Torah, or Quran literally in their lives, the majority of the people say they believe in god, but still violate all the rules on a daily basis, it's because they just follow their nature and what works in their lives rather than follow a set of rules made for people thousands of years before us. Uncontiously they're not that different than us atheists, and don't really live much differently.

[Vespertine]

I just don't think its possible because the majority of humans are not intelligent and people who are not intelligent don't think for themselves. Its sad to know that even intelligent people don't think for themselves. Hell, hardly anyone really thinks for themselves. A pity, really.

[StillDreaming]

Originally posted by SecularFuture
Statistics on religion and atheism:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

And yes - secularism IS growing:
(I wonder why :D)
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/kurtz_22_3.htm

more statistics:
http://www.noharmm.org/religiouspop.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990c48a.htm

According to these site, the number of nonbelievers is exceeded only by the number of christians.

[Seraphim]

By Shake

From Q&A #1: no, that's how theists are (in general). Following some old text because, "God says so," and their pastor, priest, etc. blindly. Most non-theists got to where they are by thinking, questioning the norm, and not blindly accepting what they are told (even by science)!

My reply : Like I said before, your views are based on a simple thing - your own notions and experiences with Christianity, NOT being Theists since being a Theists is not required to follow Christianity alone. There are plenty of people out there who are theists and most of them are not Christians.

My suggestion is that you (ALL of you) open your eyes and look beyond your own prison - Christianity and see the world in a proper picture.

The Eastern societies (India, China, Japan, and all the others smaller Island states) had developed far beyond that of European nation at the same time, all because they had Religion to back them up as well. This is proof in history of Man, not something the priests could make up to support their claims. Are you denying that?

Q&A #2: Typical Xian response: atheists can't be moral! What? Like the moral pedophile priests? Whatever!

My reply : I never said anything about being moral or being a Christian either. I'm stating that in an Atheist world, there will be lack of reasons for a person to do good than in a theist world. Death alone will be enough to give a reason for a person to do things which by right is not morale because he will want to "enjoy" as much as possible before dying. And since death means dissappearing from the face of the earth and there is no afterlife, he will not bother about his actions nor its consequence.

"It is amazing what you can do ... when you don't have to look at yourself in the mirror anymore" - Kevin Bacon (as Sebastian) in Hollow Man.

[Shake]

Originally posted by Seraphim
My reply : Like I said before, your views are based on a simple thing - your own notions and experiences with Christianity, NOT being Theists since being a Theists is not required to follow Christianity alone. There are plenty of people out there who are theists and most of them are not Christians.I know that there are theists who aren't Xian. Give me some credit here, please. My remarks were about the differences between theists (including Xians!) and non-theists. Maybe you need to read it again.My suggestion is that you (ALL of you) open your eyes and look beyond your own prison - Christianity and see the world in a proper picture.I'm no prisoner to Xianity! Haven't been for many years. I suppose you know what the "proper picture" is. Maybe you could enlighten us.

The Eastern societies (India, China, Japan, and all the others smaller Island states) had developed far beyond that of European nation at the same time, all because they had Religion to back them up as well. This is proof in history of Man, not something the priests could make up to support their claims. Are you denying that?I can't deny what I don't understand. You're saying European nations didn't have religion backing them up? That's bullshit.

Q&A #2: Typical Xian response: atheists can't be moral! What? Like the moral pedophile priests? Whatever!

My reply : I never said anything about being moral or being a Christian either. I'm stating that in an Atheist world, there will be lack of reasons for a person to do good than in a theist world. Death alone will be enough to give a reason for a person to do things which by right is not morale because he will want to "enjoy" as much as possible before dying. And since death means dissappearing from the face of the earth and there is no afterlife, he will not bother about his actions nor its consequence.An atheist world could go any number of ways and it certainly doesn't have to be this lowest common denominator theory that you are pushing. I suspect an atheist world would have most of the very same secular laws in place that are around today. The blue laws would probably be gone, but it wouldn't be some lawless, anarchist-type world that you seem to think it would be. You can enjoy life very well without breaking laws or doing immoral things. Many of us atheists do that all the time. Your use of the word enjoy in the quotation marks does seem to imply that you are indeed making a moral judgement about atheists (and theists), and a broad one at that. The notion of death should be enough for us to enjoy our lives to the fullest, but we don't have to do anything immoral or illegal to enjoy life.

Let me know when your views have grown beyond the simplistic black-and-white world that you live in.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Seraphim
But I do agree in increase of crime in Atheist world. An atheist who doesn't believe in afterlife could easily indulge himself in a life of crime if he believe such activity will bring him more benefits (such as wealth, power etc). I mean, what is the worse that could possibly happen to him? He could die and he won't be coming back to face his actions. Isn't that worth taking risk of indulging yourself?

If this is valid, why are atheists not overly represented in prison census readings?

[scombrid]

Seraphim said:
An atheist who doesn't believe in afterlife could easily indulge himself in a life of crime if he believe such activity will bring him more benefits (such as wealth, power etc). I mean, what is the worse that could possibly happen to him?

Would a life of crime really bring the atheist more benefits? In wild dogs in Africa subordinates often lead hunts. When they make a kill they will often call the rest of the pack to the kill before they're satiated. Being subordinate, they often get shoved off of the kill that they made once the other arrive. Wouldn't it be more profitable to the dog to eat his fill before calling in the pack? Why the social order if it's always more profitable to be a thief? Do wild canids have an edict from god the tells them to be good to each other or is there some benefit to the social order?

[southernhybrid]

I don't think it would make that much difference for many of the reasons already stated. I think I would probably have a lot more cool friends though. ;)

When it comes right down to it, it's the fanatics that are the problem. Fanatics can be atheist or theist.

[Seraphim]

By Shake

I know that there are theists who aren't Xian. Give me some credit here, please. My remarks were about the differences between theists (including Xians!) and non-theists. Maybe you need to read it again.

My reply : Unfortunately you cannot mix both up. While non-Abrahamic religions and teachings attend to be open-minded and more toward personal development toward path to God, Abrahamic religions are more toward blind acceptance, thus produce a more close-minded society.

I'm no prisoner to Xianity! Haven't been for many years. I suppose you know what the "proper picture" is. Maybe you could enlighten us.

My reply : you don't have to be IN Christianity to be in its prison. Your mindset is a prison enough. You were a child growing up in a Christian home, are you not?
Most grown ups develops their chains of thoughts by what they experienced during their childhood, which includes religion perspective. It is not easy to change this perspective since it is buried deeper inside of you. This was what I meant by seeing in "proper picture" - a picture without those restrains which still exist within yourself.

I can't deny what I don't understand. You're saying European nations didn't have religion backing them up? That's bullshit.

My reply : What I'm stating is that European society did had religion backing them up, but their social developments (science and technology) wasn't fully back-up by religion like it did in the East. Matter a fact, West (where Christianity flourished) is the ONLY place scientists were prosecuted by clergymen.

Take example of Medicine. European medicine most of the time have nothing to do with religion, and even now, the treatment by homoepathy methods (brought by religion) are seen as an outdated method. In the East, medicine came to an amazing development with such methods as Ayurveda and Acupunture which is accepted.

An atheist world could go any number of ways and it certainly doesn't have to be this lowest common denominator theory that you are pushing. I suspect an atheist world would have most of the very same secular laws in place that are around today. The blue laws would probably be gone, but it wouldn't be some lawless, anarchist-type world that you seem to think it would be.

My reply : I made my assumption based on what I have seen here. Are you going to deny that debate on which is morale and which is not is an everyday topic around here? Are you denying that since there is restriction by theists' rules and regulations, there are people here who considers suicides?
This forum is a perfect place where you can reflect on the world which you seek, so far, I've only seen chaos and confusion ... nothing more.

You can enjoy life very well without breaking laws or doing immoral things. Many of us atheists do that all the time. Your use of the word enjoy in the quotation marks does seem to imply that you are indeed making a moral judgement about atheists (and theists), and a broad one at that. The notion of death should be enough for us to enjoy our lives to the fullest, but we don't have to do anything immoral or illegal to enjoy life.

My reply : Yes ... true. YOU are enjoying life without doing anything immoral or illegal. That is not the question here. Question is - HOW sure are you that your CHILDREN will do the same? And their children and the next generation onwards?

Example - prematial sex during 1950s in USA and Europe. It was an isolated cases in 1950s where prematial sex was the conducted, by 1960s, it was a trend and by 1970s, it was an epidemic. The consequences of this "actions" is AIDS which appeared in 1980s.

In less than ONE generational gap, so much problem appeared IN an Theists society where they conducted something that by right is immoral by their religion's standard (and still is in the East). How sure are you that your future generations will not be in such a state if you take out theists principles out of their life?

One last question - Do you think of yourself to be so Holy that you could lead your future generation properly?

Let me know when your views have grown beyond the simplistic black-and-white world that you live in.

My reply : Hmph ... let me know when you step out of your prison to the real world ...

By Valmorian

If this is valid, why are atheists not overly represented in prison census readings?

My reply : What kindda question is that? Do you think just because one person prays to God that he will suddenly become Holy and let go of ALL desires?
Desires leads one (whether a person is a theists OR Atheists) toward path of suffering - including crime.
The question is like - census of those who die in the automobile accidents are higher among theists SO God doesn't exists.

But logical speaking, I can suggest (ONLY) two possibilities :

1. that amount of people in one state/region who are atheists are lowers thus the census in the prison is lower.

2. Atheists are more careful in how they spent their lives since they assume that when they die, there is no afterlife.

By scombrid

Could a life of crime really bring the atheist more benefits? In wild dogs in Africa subordinates often lead hunts. When they make a kill they will often call the rest of the pack to the kill before they're satiated. Being subordinate, they often get shoved off of the kill that they made once the other arrive. Wouldn't it be more profitable to the dog to eat his fill before calling in the pack? Why the social order if it's always more profitable to be a thief? Do wild canids have an edict from god the tells them to be good to each other or is there some benefit to the social order?

My reply : O_o You are comparing a Human with wild dogs from Africa? You got something against Humans?

This is a BAD analog actually. Wild dogs (all other animals as well actually) hunt others for food because they need it to survive. Humans do crime not because they are starving (unless you are in a 3rd World country where food is scarce). Most of them, especially in the West and more advance countries in the East are doing crime because they have more benefits by it and despite of risks of getting caught, it is still worth risking it for the sake of benefits.

[OBKB]

Until the server and the served realize the tools that teach segregation of sentient beings is abolished we can not be civilized.

[Seraphim]

Until the server and the served realize the tools that teach segregation of sentient beings is abolished we can not be civilized.

My question : Meaning? Who is the server and who is been served?

[scombrid]

This is a BAD analog actually. Wild dogs (all other animals as well actually) hunt others for food because they need it to survive. Humans do crime not because they are starving (unless you are in a 3rd World country where food is scarce). Most of them, especially in the West and more advance countries in the East are doing crime because they have more benefits by it and despite of risks of getting caught, it is still worth risking it for the sake of benefits.

The analog is risk/benefit of cheateing/cooperating and the fact that the starving dogs don't need the Ten Commandments to keep them from stealing.

For the dogs it's life/death struggle while for most humans it's resource accumulation. Even in the dogs, the consequence of cheating outweighs the benefits hence few dogs cheat. Some dogs will still cheat just as some humans still cheat. Those dogs will be driven from the pack and either find a new pack or starve and fail to reproduce. The game is weighing the risk of cheating against the gains of cooperating. Some will cheat and succede while most will face the wrath of the social group. If I loan a friend a stereo and he hocks it, he will no longer reap the benefits of my friendship. His immediate gain is money for the radio but that may not outweigh my potential to bail him out of trouble in the future. The loss of social ties is probalby one of the largest deterents to abherent behavior. This may be why gangs can be attractive. It allows risky cheating behavoir while maintaining a social network.

[Seraphim]

By scombrid

The analog is risk/benefit of cheateing/cooperating and the fact that the starving dogs don't need the Ten Commandments to keep them from stealing.

My reply : I still find it a poor analog for anything since animals are a poor study case of human beings.

Straving dogs don't need ten commandments to keep them from stealing, but they do it either way. There is no right or wrong in animals world, only survival of the fittest. The stronger one will prey upon the smaller, weaker ones for sake of survival - Jungle Laws for lower intelligent species.

[b] For the dogs it's life/death struggle while for most humans it's resource accumulation. Even in the dogs, the consequence of cheating outweighs the benefits hence few dogs cheat. Some dogs will still cheat just as some humans still cheat. Those dogs will be driven from the pack and either find a new pack or starve and fail to reproduce . The game is weighing the risk of cheating against the gains of cooperating. Some will cheat and succede while most will face the wrath of the social group. If I loan a friend a stereo and he hocks it, he will no longer reap the benefits of my friendship. His immediate gain is money for the radio but that may not outweigh my potential to bail him out of trouble in the future. The loss of social ties is probalby one of the largest deterents to abherent behavior. This may be why gangs can be attractive. It allows risky cheating behavoir while maintaining a social network.

My reply : Sorry ... but your concept of "stealing" among dogs are incorrect.
1. Dogs do not fonder about consequences because there is no consequence to ponder. If two dogs starves and it come across a food source, which ever the strongest will subdue the weaker one for it. It will not sit down and think about the consequences of it action.

2. Some members of dogs and cat familys do leave the group to find its own area to hunt and raise their youngs. Not all species stay in one group for ever. At least, that's what I understood from watching National Geography.

3. Wrath of the group? There is no wrath of a group in a dog society, at least as National Geography had photography so far. There is ONLY survival of the fittest where only the strongest survives.
There is however a hieraki of social ladder - Male Alpha, Female Alpha and lower members. The Male and female Alpha usually the leaders and they and their "childrens" usually have the biggest share of the catch.

If you friend takes your stereo and run, he maybe lose your support, but in your society, it is a small lost. In dog's society, you're a lower member of your society and your friend who stole is an Alpha male and you have no rights to voice your opinion because your status as a lower member ... all because there is no Ten Commandment.

[Seraphim]

By scombrid

The analog is risk/benefit of cheateing/cooperating and the fact that the starving dogs don't need the Ten Commandments to keep them from stealing.

My reply : I still find it a poor analog for anything since animals are a poor study case of human beings.

Straving dogs don't need ten commandments to keep them from stealing, but they do it either way. There is no right or wrong in animals world, only survival of the fittest. The stronger one will prey upon the smaller, weaker ones for sake of survival - Jungle Laws for lower intelligent species.

[b] For the dogs it's life/death struggle while for most humans it's resource accumulation. Even in the dogs, the consequence of cheating outweighs the benefits hence few dogs cheat. Some dogs will still cheat just as some humans still cheat. Those dogs will be driven from the pack and either find a new pack or starve and fail to reproduce . The game is weighing the risk of cheating against the gains of cooperating. Some will cheat and succede while most will face the wrath of the social group. If I loan a friend a stereo and he hocks it, he will no longer reap the benefits of my friendship. His immediate gain is money for the radio but that may not outweigh my potential to bail him out of trouble in the future. The loss of social ties is probalby one of the largest deterents to abherent behavior. This may be why gangs can be attractive. It allows risky cheating behavoir while maintaining a social network.

My reply : Sorry ... but your concept of "stealing" among dogs are incorrect.
1. Dogs do not fonder about consequences because there is no consequence to ponder. If two dogs starves and it come across a food source, which ever the strongest will subdue the weaker one for it. It will not sit down and think about the consequences of it action.

2. Some members of dogs and cat familys do leave the group to find its own area to hunt and raise their youngs. Not all species stay in one group for ever. At least, that's what I understood from watching National Geography.

3. Wrath of the group? There is no wrath of a group in a dog society, at least as National Geography had photography so far. There is ONLY survival of the fittest where only the strongest survives.
There is however a hieraki of social ladder - Male Alpha, Female Alpha and lower members. The Male and female Alpha usually the leaders and they and their "childrens" usually have the biggest share of the catch.

If you friend takes your stereo and run, he maybe lose your support, but in your society, it is a small lost. In dog's society, you're a lower member of your society and your friend who stole is an Alpha male and you have no rights to voice your opinion because your status as a lower member ... all because there is no Ten Commandment.

[orac]

Originally posted by Seraphim
My reply : I never said anything about being moral or being a Christian either. I'm stating that in an Atheist world, there will be lack of reasons for a person to do good than in a theist world.
[/B]
There is only one difference between a christian and an atheist: one believes in a deity and an afterlife, the other doesn't. At most, an atheist world is one where the threat of post-death punishment doesn't exist. If that is the only basis you have for morality, I can see why you'ld want to keep a belief in God.

If there are reasons that don't require God or an afterlife, then why wouldn't they apply even if people stop believing in God?

Btw, are you trying to argue that the only reason a christian is a good person is their fear of punishment? That's not a complimentary view of christians :)


Here's some examples of reasons to do good things that don't rely on God or an afterlife of any description:

If I'm nice to other people, then other people will be nice to me.

If I cooperate with other people, together we can do things that I couldn't do on my own. (Do you want a bigger slice of a small pie, or a small slice of a huge pie? Most people can understand that if the pie gets bigger, everyone can have a larger amount, even if the slice they get is a smaller percentage of the total.)

I don't recall any plausible authority instructing me to hate everyone who's different to me. If they're not hurting me, why should I waste my life hurting them, when I could be enjoying myself?

They're my friends. I care about them. I want them to like me, too. Why on earth would I want to hurt them?


Belief in God is not required in order to be a decent person.


Originally posted by Seraphim
and there is no afterlife, he will not bother about his actions nor its consequence.


Actions have consequences before you die, too.

If everyone suddenly only did what made them feel good at the time, society wouldn't last long, and everyone would lose the benefits of civilisation. Most people can (with help) learn to understand this, and figure out that a little self-sacrifice will lead to greater benefits. The tragedy of the commons is only a problem until people realise what's going on - once they understand the problem, people tend to work together to ensure that their own benefits aren't destroyed by their own greed.

Punishment in an afterlife (that not everyone believes in anyway) is not a requirement for civilisation or morality.

[Seraphim]

By orac

There is only one difference between a christian and an atheist: one believes in a deity and an afterlife, the other doesn't. At most, an atheist world is one where the threat of post-death punishment doesn't exist. If that is the only basis you have for morality, I can see why you'ld want to keep a belief in God.

My reply : Lack of threat of post-death punishment is now exchanged with possible increase in premature death - namely by suicides since people who has nothing to look forwards to in live could choose to end it rather than living it.

What does Atheism offers to people who has nothing to look forward to?

Btw, are you trying to argue that the only reason a christian is a good person is their fear of punishment? That's not a complimentary view of christians

My reply : Hmph ...
1. I'm not a Christian.
2. I don't tell lie, only what I think is true.
3. You want facts or fiction? Making compliments to others is not fact, so why make them?

Here's some examples of reasons to do good things that don't rely on God or an afterlife of any description:

If I'm nice to other people, then other people will be nice to me.

My question : Exactly which did planet you drop to Earth from? You cannot possible be this naive. People will be nice to you as long as you have something to offer them. Not everyone will offer their help to you when you see it ... I learn it the hard way, even in theist world.

If I cooperate with other people, together we can do things that I couldn't do on my own. (Do you want a bigger slice of a small pie, or a small slice of a huge pie? Most people can understand that if the pie gets bigger, everyone can have a larger amount, even if the slice they get is a smaller percentage of the total.)

My reply : Fair share to ALL? Nonsense ... even in theist world which trying to promote brotherhood among themselves, fair sharing is not something everyone could give and take. Greed is human factor and being theists or atheists will not change it.

I don't recall any plausible authority instructing me to hate everyone who's different to me. If they're not hurting me, why should I waste my life hurting them, when I could be enjoying myself?

My reply : Another naive statement ... people look at other people different not because God instruct them to do so ... it is their nature and Ego as such.
No one wants to be same as the next guy, everyone wants to to be different, special ... in animal world, it is called being Alpha where one individual tries to dominate another. Being atheist or theists will not change that because it is Human nature.

They're my friends. I care about them. I want them to like me, too. Why on earth would I want to hurt them?

My question : You can care for them, how sure are you that they will care for you and behave just as you behave with them?
Greed, Ego, Domination of others is ALL human nature, it has nothing to do with being atheists or theist, it has everything to be a human.

Belief in God is not required in order to be a decent person.

My reply : True.

Actions have consequences before you die, too.

If everyone suddenly only 1. did what made them feel good at the time, society wouldn't last long, and everyone would lose the benefits of civilisation . Most people can (with help) learn to understand this, and figure out that 2. a little self-sacrifice will lead to greater benefits . The tragedy of the commons is only a problem until people realise what's going on - once they understand the problem, people tend to work together to ensure that their own benefits aren't destroyed by their own greed.

My reply : how naive ... Go back to whichever world you came from ... Earth is not suitable for you ... too many corrupted souls here.

1. Tell that to those who wish to have atheist world. Do you think they will listen to you and do what is right? Maybe they could, but their children? Being born in a world where Good and Bad is determined by man, will they still listen to you and work for benefits of civilisation?

2. Really? Why don't we take a look at the world now? People still buying ivory, whale meat, mink coats, etc despite of various protests. WHY? Because they are theists? NO, because they can buy and they can afford it.

Why should they sacrifice while the person next to him can sacrifice something in his behalf?
Because of it is decent? Sorry - such value has no price in the market.
Because it is the right thing to do? Who says? I wish to buy a mink coat and I don't give a crap how many animals die for it because for me it is a right thing.
Because of God? You yourself there is no God, so why should I waste my life sacrificing something if the next person could do so?

Punishment in an afterlife (that not everyone believes in anyway) is not a requirement for civilisation or morality.

My reply : Fear of punishment is NOT what bring faith ...it only brings fear. If you think having faith means fear damnation, you don't know anything about faith.

[avalanche:ix]

1. that amount of people in one state/region who are atheists are lowers thus the census in the prison is lower.

do you not comprehend the concept of relative numbers? you know, this many out of a thousand people have tv's in that country and this many in that country, that sort of thing. your objection indicates you do not comprehend this concept.




2. Atheists are more careful in how they spent their lives since they assume that when they die, there is no afterlife.

ehm, excuse me? how the fuck is that logical? i'm not concerned that i'll go to hell because i have premarital sex. why the fuck would *i* be the one more careful/repressed in my life as opposed to the theist, who does afterall, believe that all his actions in life affect his afterlife?

tell me, you ate a lot of paint as a kid didn't you?

[Jack the Bodiless]

What type of world will a 90% atheist world be?
Simple answer: like Europe is now.

Sure, Europe isn't 90% atheist. But Christianity has lost its power of social coercion. Belief in any religion, or no religion, is entirely voluntary. Overt religious belief is "odd", church attendance is highly unusual, pretty much everyone acts like an atheist. With "pick-and-mix" religion, any would-be criminal can already pick a set of spiritual beliefs that don't stop him doing whatever he wants to do.

[scombrid]

My reply : I still find it a poor analog for anything since animals are a poor study case of human beings.

Straving dogs don't need ten commandments to keep them from stealing, but they do it either way. There is no right or wrong in animals world, only survival of the fittest. The stronger one will prey upon the smaller, weaker ones for sake of survival - Jungle Laws for lower intelligent species.
The last time I checked, humans are animals. The dogs just have a much less complex behavioral pattern that we do. However, their social interactions may be instructive to phenomena we see within human behavior. They may not ponder their choices in the same way we do but they do weight the cost benefit of their actions. If being expelled from a social group means death by starvation, I bet that members of that social group will play by the rules to stay in the group. This is observable in wild canids, hyenas, and some of our primate cousins among other animals. This arises from the fact the cooperative individuals in these social species have had better reproductive success than their anti-social brethren through history.


My reply : Sorry ... but your concept of "stealing" among dogs are incorrect.
1. Dogs do not fonder about consequences because there is no consequence to ponder. If two dogs starves and it come across a food source, which ever the strongest will subdue the weaker one for it. It will not sit down and think about the consequences of it action.
Within a group of related animals in a given social species it isn’t “survival of the mostest fittest”. It isn’t just a game of the biggest eating the most and bullying out subordinates. Otherwise, subordinates that make a kill or find a carcass would never call in dominants before they’ve had their fill. Also, subordinates would simply leave the group or be driven off lest there be some benefit for hanging around.

2. Some members of dogs and cat familys do leave the group to find its own area to hunt and raise their youngs. Not all species stay in one group for ever. At least, that's what I understood from watching National Geography.
Study up on kin selection and try to get some science from someplace beside National Geographic and Steve Irwin. Animals remain in a pack as long as it maximizes the chances of their passing on their genes. This may include apparently altruistic (but not truly since they have the ulterior motive of replicating their genes) act of aiding in rearing their siblings who contain 50% of their genes. Frequently in a pack all members are somewhat related so they’re helping their genes as long as they’re helping the group. Animals leave the pack when they’re no longer maximizing benefit to their own genes. This may occur when siblings become large enough that they take up too many resources or often comes when they reach reproductive age and will not be able to breed unless they get away from the dominant breeders in the group. Note that these decisions are not conscious decisions but are behaviors selected over time by bestowing greater reproductive success on their possessors.
Not all humans stay in a group forever either. Actually, humans that stay in one group forever are known as inbred.

3. Wrath of the group? There is no wrath of a group in a dog society, at least as National Geography had photography so far. There is ONLY survival of the fittest where only the strongest survives.
There is however a hieraki of social ladder - Male Alpha, Female Alpha and lower members. The Male and female Alpha usually the leaders and they and their "childrens" usually have the biggest share of the catch.
Violate the social hierarchy and you’re out. If you’re ill-equipped for solitary life you’re dead. That’s the group wrath.

If you friend takes your stereo and run, he maybe lose your support, but in your society, it is a small lost. In dog's society, you're a lower member of your society and your friend who stole is an Alpha male and you have no rights to voice your opinion because your status as a lower member ... all because there is no Ten Commandment.
My friend stealing from me would be like and alpha stealing from and alpha or a sub stealing from a sub. That dog social structure may differ from western man is irrelevant. You fail to see the point that they have a social order with rules without divine edict. Perhaps I should’ve cited friendlier, less patriarchal social animals such as bonobos.
Additionally I can find human packs that have similar social hierarchy to dogs where lower members have no rights relative to stronger members. What about societies where women had the status of lower members of the pack or old time United States or Amurika in which a white man could sometimes get away with killing a black man for the most minor of offense? Our social constructs are independent of the Ten C. Otherwise, this atheist might have already run amuck beat the crap out of the little man that was insulting me down at the docks yesterday. However, had I done that I’d have likely lost my job because the guy that was insulting me was a friend of the contractor that we hired to catch fish for us. Additionally, if I go around beating people up, they will eventually gang up on me or I’ll run up against somebody that I can’t whip. It’s in my best interest to treat people nice and hope to receive the same and only offend if first offended.
Look up “doves, hawks, and game theory” for a simple overview of risk assessment and behavioral strategy.

[scombrid]

My reply : how naive ... Go back to whichever world you came from ... Earth is not suitable for you ... too many corrupted souls here.

1. Tell that to those who wish to have atheist world. Do you think they will listen to you and do what is right? Maybe they could, but their children? Being born in a world where Good and Bad is determined by man, will they still listen to you and work for benefits of civilisation?

2. Really? Why don't we take a look at the world now? People still buying ivory, whale meat, mink coats, etc despite of various protests. WHY? Because they are theists? NO, because they can buy and they can afford it.

Why should they sacrifice while the person next to him can sacrifice something in his behalf?
Because of it is decent? Sorry - such value has no price in the market.
Because it is the right thing to do? Who says? I wish to buy a mink coat and I don't give a crap how many animals die for it because for me it is a right thing.
Because of God? You yourself there is no God, so why should I waste my life sacrificing something if the next person could do so?

Did the bible command the animal rights activists to be animal rights activists? But where did their values come from if the rest of the world is saying nuke the whales and run over the minks with SUVs? They decided that what's in everyones best interest is in their own best interest. Through reason they as a group decided on their own values. Wait, that sounds familiar it's what theists do regard their belief systems. Man is still deciding what's right even when he pretends that god told me so.

You've also just outlined the bit of human mentality that leads to the tragedy of the commons. I maximize benefit to me while I can't trust me neighbor to pull his weight or leave me a share of the pie. Its the reason the some folks drive HUGE cars for safety. Those huge cars endanger others but protect the driver. That's one reason why communism fails but controlled capitalism is successful. For Communists, labor rewards are a commons and each gets a share but no extra for effort/success. Capitalism allows man to pursue wealth with some garantee that he'll reap some benefit for his labor so he excels. We in the capitalist world have agreed that this is the way to do things and try to keep cheaters at bay. This has nothing to do with divine edict.

[Fiach]

Originally posted by Old Man
I think there is a problem with definitions here. One can be both an atheist and a theist at the same time.

One can be a practising atheist, but outwardly maintain theist opinions.

I don't understand that. But I practiced Neurology in the USA. I know from numerous anecdotal admissions that many American physicians are atheists but fear boycotts of their practices because of America's widespread anti-Atheism. From discussions at the American Academy of Neurology annual meeting which I attend every other year, I estimate that over 90% of Neurologists are Atheists, many of whom "fake Christianity" back home. Many of them just shut their gobs and refuse to answer the question. Others, especially in small towns actually enroll in a local church and force their wives and children to attend services and "fake Christianity." These are all what is commonly known as "Closet Atheists." I suspect that many small businessmen, even lawyers may be closet atheists for economic security in a country with so much anti-atheist bigotry. Therefore the low 8% of Americans who admit atheism/agnosticism are largely in academia, large multispecialty medical groups, or high level executives like Bill Gates of Microsoft, who can get away with it. I further suspect that as much as 10 or 20% of American politicians are closet atheists pretending to be Christians.

Therefore, the fact that 90% of people maintain theist opinions does not infer that socieity will change to any great extent, if 85% of those theists already behave like atheists.

I feel that statistics are skewed by the conditions in places like USA and Ireland, and for that matter Iran, Pakistan, Saudi, and Afghanistan, where admission of atheism can lead to loss of income (USA, Ireland) or execution (Iran, Pakistan, Saudi, and Afghanistan.) Perhaps millions of Atheists must be "closet Atheists" for income and/or survival.

Fiach

[The Naked Mage]

Originally posted by avalanche:ix

tell me, you ate a lot of paint as a kid didn't you?

He never STOPPED, avalanche.

[Seraphim]

By avalanche:ix

ehm, excuse me? how the fuck is that logical? i'm not concerned that i'll go to hell because i have premarital sex. why the fuck would *i* be the one more careful/repressed in my life as opposed to the theist, who does afterall, believe that all his actions in life affect his afterlife?

My reply : Hmph ... arrogant and "baaka" ... just because you can spell the word "logic" means you're thinking like one. Your views are so narrow, that you cannot possibly think logically.

When I said people who don't believe in afterlife will take care of their own life properly means that they will not waste it in any cause which do not benefit them directly.

Example - the so-called Muslim "freedom fighters" (or terrorists for example) and other groups who used Religion and God to kill one another for the past 1,000 years. Do you think if there is no afterlife, this idiots could continue fighting?
Hell No ... they will be back with their wives, trying to make babies.
They will try to accumulate wealth so they could live much better than their neighbours since such luxury will not appear when you're dead.
And Yes, people like you will screw around men and women because you cannot experience it when you are dead and become wormfood.

tell me, you ate a lot of paint as a kid didn't you?

My question : Am I the one trying to throw away this world in exchange for an imaginary one? Wake up and smell the coffee, boy ... you stuck here with the rest of the rot called the human race, stop dreaming of your version of heaven since it doesn't exist.

[Seraphim]

By scombrid

The last time I checked, humans are animals. The dogs just have a much less complex behavioral pattern that we do.

My reply : Last time I checked, the background for claiming of Intelligence was due to fact that a species which is considered to be intelligence was able to "think outside the box". Tell me something, if you give a same senario to a pack of wild dogs, how many senarios will you get which is different to each other (to show that they do ponder about all this you claim they are pondering)?

However, their social interactions may be instructive to phenomena we see within human behavior. They may not ponder their choices in the same way we do but they do weight the cost benefit of their actions. If being expelled from a social group means death by starvation, I bet that members of that social group will play by the rules to stay in the group. This is observable in wild canids, hyenas, and some of our primate cousins among other animals. This arises from the fact the cooperative individuals in these social species have had better reproductive success than their anti-social brethren through history.

My reply : leapords, lions, cats and a few others species of "hunter" group of animals do venture out on their own in certain period of their lives to establish their own hunting grounds and their own clans. Example - Leopard go on their own when they about 2 years old. They do not starve to death out there.

in animal species, the rules are simple - two leaders - Alph Male and Alpha female. Follow them, hunt for them and live under their rule ... that's all there seems to be under rules and regulation in animal world.

Within a group of related animals in a given social species it isn’t “survival of the mostest fittest”. It isn’t just a game of the biggest eating the most and bullying out subordinates. Otherwise, subordinates that make a kill or find a carcass would never call in dominants before they’ve had their fill . Also, subordinates would simply leave the group or be driven off lest there be some benefit for hanging around.

My reply : The hunter groups hunts together and eat according to their heiracki. Yes, Alpha's eat first and subordinate have to wait their turns. Subordinate do not hunt alone or in packs with other subordinate ... at least not that it been documented before, WHY? because such action is considered to be a challenge to an Alpha male.

Now, why don't you link this with human behavior?

Study up on kin selection and try to get some science from someplace beside National Geographic and Steve Irwin. 1. Animals remain in a pack as long as it maximizes the chances of their passing on their genes. This may include apparently altruistic (but not truly since they have the ulterior motive of replicating their genes) act of aiding in rearing their siblings who contain 50% of their genes. Frequently in a pack all members are somewhat related so they’re helping their genes as long as they’re helping the group. 2. Animals leave the pack when they’re no longer maximizing benefit to their own genes. This may occur [/u]3. when siblings become large enough that they take up too many resources or often comes when they reach reproductive age and will not be able to breed unless they get away from the dominant breeders in the group [/u]. Note that these decisions are not conscious decisions but are behaviors selected over time by bestowing greater reproductive success on their possessors.
Not all humans stay in a group forever either. Actually, humans that stay in one group forever are known as inbred.

My reply : hmph ... you are contradicting more and more about humans being animals thus bring conclusion that you "read the wrong book, pal" (Jean Claude Van Damme - The Order).

Maybe you want to read about Alpha Males a bit :
http://www.awpc.org.au/Kangaroos/killingofthealphamales.htm
http://clone.spore.org/~picori/pinniped/mate1.html
http://www.uwyo.edu/dbmcd/abstracts/Science94.html

In animal world, it is the Alphas who gets (most of the time) the ladies, NOT the entire male population. Your argument that animals within a group have best chance of distributing their genes are incorrect (as I highlighted in 1 and 2).

And In argument 3, the very migration of Humans hundred of thousands of years ago shows this is wrong as well. Number of Homo Sapien were smaller and the resources are much more than it is now, instead they still migrated and settled in other regions. Animals do not migrate and settle in a new area, they follow the change in season (if it is hervivor) or migration of prey (if were canivore) and returns back to the same spot year after year.

Violate the social hierarchy and you’re out. If you’re ill-equipped for solitary life you’re dead. That’s the group wrath.

My reply : Another nonsense ... animals like leapords etc DO leave their clan to establish their own territory. They do not die of starvation because they left their group.
When two different groups meets, it is the Alpha's who fight it out and if Alpha loses, the winner's group takes over the resources and the ENTIRE male population (females usually kept as "prisoners of war while their younglings kicked out or killed) is kicked out. Subordinates do not play any role as warriors to fight for anything.

My friend stealing from me would be like and alpha stealing from and alpha or a sub stealing from a sub. That dog social structure may differ from western man is irrelevant. You fail to see the point that they have a social order with rules without divine edict. Perhaps I should’ve cited friendlier, less patriarchal social animals such as bonobos.

My reply : What I see if a failure to try and link animal world to human behavior. The very concept of Intelligence is missing from this picture where individual have right to shape their path and do not need a leader (Alpha Male) to hold hands with.

Additionally I can find human packs that have similar social hierarchy to dogs where lower members have no rights relative to stronger members. What about societies where women had the status of lower members of the pack or old time United States or Amurika in which a white man could sometimes get away with killing a black man for the most minor of offense? Our social constructs are independent of the Ten C. Otherwise, this atheist might have already run amuck beat the crap out of the little man that was insulting me down at the docks yesterday. However, had I done that I’d have likely lost my job because the guy that was insulting me was a friend of the contractor that we hired to catch fish for us. Additionally, if I go around beating people up, they will eventually gang up on me or I’ll run up against somebody that I can’t whip. It’s in my best interest to treat people nice and hope to receive the same and only offend if first offended.

My reply : because of America society is reducing to level of animal state is why you having so much problem over there. You have great technology and science but your populations are going retarded because they are limiting their intelligence to that of an animals'.

Look up “doves, hawks, and game theory” for a simple overview of risk assessment and behavioral strategy.

My reply : you need animal's strategy to survive and assess yourself?

[avalanche:ix]

My reply : Hmph ... arrogant and "baaka" ... just because you can spell the word "logic" means you're thinking like one. Your views are so narrow, that you cannot possibly think logically.

1. you call my views narrow because they conflict with yours. this is a typical human response when it involves hard held beliefs and presuppositions, but doesn't really invoke the reality of the situation.

2. a narrow view is not by definition illogical, nor is a person who holds narrow views by definition illogical. logic itself is pretty narrow in fact. accepting certain logical outcomes, means you'll have to discard those that conflict with it, if their logical structure can be shown to be false. this may be perceived by you as narrow or illogical thinking, but in reality it's neither.



When I said people who don't believe in afterlife will take care of their own life properly means that they will not waste it in any cause which do not benefit them directly.

and you're obviously blatantly wrong as displayed for one by the dozens of people on this forum who don't believe in an afterlife, and yet participate in things like charity or a an actual personal offer of help to others in ways that does not benefit them directly.
you can't possibly be naieve enough to believe what you just said, if you do, then it's you with the narrow view and the illogical conclusions.


Example - the so-called Muslim "freedom fighters" (or terrorists for example) and other groups who used Religion and God to kill one another for the past 1,000 years. Do you think if there is no afterlife, this idiots could continue fighting?

OFCOURSE they would. there IS NO afterlife, does that bother them? no, because they're indoctrinated and will believe it regardless of how often it's proved false. and furthermore, do you honestly believe their conflict to be one of purely religion? while religion plays a massive role in such conflicts, culture also plays an important rule, and also cause for much hostility, i would think this to be obvious.



And Yes, people like you will screw around men and women because you cannot experience it when you are dead and become wormfood.

i just do that because i have a neurological defect. these other people here don't.




My question : Am I the one trying to throw away this world in exchange for an imaginary one?

well, you ARE the theist here, aren't you?

i rest my case.

[scombrid]

My reply : Last time I checked, the background for claiming of Intelligence was due to fact that a species which is considered to be intelligence was able to "think outside the box". Tell me something, if you give a same senario to a pack of wild dogs, how many senarios will you get which is different to each other (to show that they do ponder about all this you claim they are pondering)?

You missed or ignored the part where I stated that these are not conscious decisions on the part of the animals but are genetically programmed behaviors. I never said that wild dogs had behaviors as complex as ours either. That’s irrelevant.


My reply : leapords, lions, cats and a few others species of "hunter" group of animals do venture out on their own in certain period of their lives to establish their own hunting grounds and their own clans. Example - Leopard go on their own when they about 2 years old. They do not starve to death out there.

Did you miss me writing this? This may occur [/u]3. when siblings become large enough that they take up too many resources or often comes when they reach reproductive age and will not be able to breed unless they get away from the dominant breeders in the group [/u]. Note that these decisions are not conscious decisions but are behaviors selected over time by bestowing greater reproductive success on their possessors.

Leopards hunt efficiently as solitary animals. Males leave because they can’t reproduce under the dominant male so it doesn’t pay to stick around. It only pays to stick around so long as maximizing benefit to your genes while you stay.

in animal species, the rules are simple - two leaders - Alph Male and Alpha female. Follow them, hunt for them and live under their rule ... that's all there seems to be under rules and regulation in animal world.
Oversimplifying things a bit aren’t you. That doesn’t apply across the board. Look up mere cats.


My reply : The hunter groups hunts together and eat according to their heiracki. Yes, Alpha's eat first and subordinate have to wait their turns. Subordinate do not hunt alone or in packs with other subordinate ... at least not that it been documented before, WHY? because such action is considered to be a challenge to an Alpha male.

Now, why don't you link this with human behavior?

I did link it with human behavior later on. There are human societies where dominants get first crack and others get screwed regularly. It has been documented in dogs where subordinate males have made a kill without more dominant members present but have called in the rest of the pack when it would have been easy to get it’s fill first. Also, what about adolescent members puking up meals for their younger siblings? This occurs until the younger demand more food than their older siblings can supply. Surely the older siblings should just hog what they get under your ultra-simple system of “survival of the mostest strongest fittest”



My reply : hmph ... you are contradicting more and more about humans being animals thus bring conclusion that you "read the wrong book, pal" (Jean Claude Van Damme - The Order).

Maybe you want to read about Alpha Males a bit :
http://www.awpc.org.au/Kangaroos/ki...ealphamales.htm
http://clone.spore.org/~picori/pinniped/mate1.html
http://www.uwyo.edu/dbmcd/abstracts/Science94.html

In animal world, it is the Alphas who gets (most of the time) the ladies, NOT the entire male population. Your argument that animals within a group have best chance of distributing their genes are incorrect (as I highlighted in 1 and 2).
HMPH back at you. You didn’t study up on kin selection did you? If you are ill equipped to rear young alone, it pays to stick around and help rear relatives. Each of your brothers and sisters contains fifty percent of your genes. They are just about as valuable as your own children would be. You leave when the burden of siblings outweighs the benefits of raising your own kids. This obviously doesn’t apply to cats that do quite well alone. I’ll also note that your third link supports my position;
. Instead, we demonstrate direct, though long-delayed benefits to beta males, which include rare copulations, ascension to alpha status, and female lek-fidelity. These benefits maintain this unusual form of male-male cooperation.

Hmmm. It seems that the beta males have a vested interest besides simply being afraid of the strongest males. I might also note that in most human societies, “the entire male population” doesn’t breed either. Hmmm, now what about adolescent boys where the dorks are compelled to hang out with the cool kids? They basically lick the cool kid’s boots to remain in the group. You get more girls when you’re in the cool group even if the dominant group members get first crack at the hotties.


And In argument 3, the very migration of Humans hundred of thousands of years ago shows this is wrong as well. Number of Homo Sapien were smaller and the resources are much more than it is now, instead they still migrated and settled in other regions. Animals do not migrate and settle in a new area, they follow the change in season (if it is hervivor) or migration of prey (if were canivore) and returns back to the same spot year after year.
Animals will migrate to a new area and settle if the habitat will support them. Coyotes have expanded their range all the way to the east coast as the US expanded and their competitor the wolf was eliminated and land clearing created more favorable open habitat. Some birds have successfully expanded their ranges as human activities have altered habitat. Ospreys have re-expanded their range as their population rebounds in the post DDT era and day markers provide excellent nest sites. Bears keep showing up in cities adjacent to the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge as the population reaches saturation and young break out looking for new habitat. This type of range expansion predates modern man’s meddling. The fossil record tracks the movement of the big cats from old world to new over time.
For man, resources on a local scale were likely limiting as well. That’s why there were hunter/gatherer nomadic groups. You can only kill so many animals or pick so many berries in one spot. Plentiful resources were in the form of room to roam. How is this different from animals following the season? There is no reason that conflicts over local resources didn’t drive human clans to splinter periodically.


My reply : Another nonsense ... animals like leapords etc DO leave their clan to establish their own territory. They do not die of starvation because they left their group.
Leopards aren’t really that social of an animal and do well enough alone once they’re old enough to do so. Inbreeding depression probably selected against any groups the never lose members to other groups or receive unrelated members.

When two different groups meets, it is the Alpha's who fight it out and if Alpha loses, the winner's group takes over the resources and the ENTIRE male population (females usually kept as "prisoners of war while their younglings kicked out or killed) is kicked out. Subordinates do not play any role as warriors to fight for anything.

Read the Old Testament. The goat herders that wrote the book lived just like your Alpha groups that you say contradict my analogy of wild animal behavior to modern human behavior. Remember all that stuff about killing the men and taking their virgins.


My reply : What I see if a failure to try and link animal world to human behavior. The very concept of Intelligence is missing from this picture where individual have right to shape their path and do not need a leader (Alpha Male) to hold hands with.

That advanced intelligence is missing from the picture is why animal behavior is nice to study. It is base and instinctual. Cultural evolution has muddled basic inherited behavior but patterns are still there. I’ll post a list of resources for this area of study.






My reply : because of America society is reducing to level of animal state is why you having so much problem over there. You have great technology and science but your populations are going retarded because they are limiting their intelligence to that of an animals'.

This is crap. The days when Americans behaved more like animals were in the days of slavery and segregation and the days predating women’s suffrage. We’ve actually improved. Ignorance is a huge problem these days though.



My reply : you need animal's strategy to survive and assess yourself?

No. It’s nice to help understand why people do what they do sometimes.

Anyway, "Doves" and "Hawks" as related to game theory aren't literally how doves and hawks behave. It's hypothetical strategies. Look up "Doves, Hawks, and Evolutionarily stable strategy" and you'll get to see what I mean.


You never have answered why the irreligious in the West exhibit the lowest crime rates.
I’ll finish this post by saying that without theism things won’t change much. Tribalism would just find another source of dogma to fight over.

[scombrid]

I want to make sure that you don’t miss this:
When two different groups meets, it is the Alpha's who fight it out and if Alpha loses, the winner's group takes over the resources and the ENTIRE male population (females usually kept as "prisoners of war while their younglings kicked out or killed) is kicked out. Subordinates do not play any role as warriors to fight for anything.
Read the Old Testament. The goat herders that wrote the book lived just like your Alpha groups that you say contradict my analogy of wild animal behavior to modern human behavior. Remember all that stuff about killing the men and taking their virgins. I say we’ve managed to become less like animals here lately.

Here are a few sources on kin selection and human behavioral evolution. If I have time later I’ll dig around and see if I can find any of these publicly available.

Kin Selection:

Arnold, K.E., and I.P.F. Owens, 1999. Cooperative breeding in birds: the role of ecology. Behavioral Ecology. 10:465-471.

This one discusses the roll of resource availability and family structure. It’s
been awhile since I read this paper but IIRC they concluded that resource
limitation tends to enhance family cohesion in some song bird. They stick
together when new territories aren’t open to the young. The young are better off helping raise siblings (50% related) since new territories are available to
raise their own kids.

Anderson, M. 1984. The evolution of eusociality. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 15:165-189.

Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press, New York.

Especially read the chapters on kin selection and evolutionarily stable
strategies.

Emlen, S.T., 1982. The evolution of helping: an ecological constraints model.
American Naturalist 119:29-39.

This is another that discusses the role of resource availability in family
groups sticking together.

Emlen, S.T., 1991. Evolution of cooperative breeding in birds and mammals. 301-
305 in: Krebs, J.R. Davies (eds.). Behavioral Ecology. An Evolutionary Approach. 3rd. Edition. Blackwell, Oxford.

Trivers, R.L. 1971. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology
46:35-57.

Keller, L. and H.K. Reeve. 1994. Partitioning of reproduction in animal societies.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:98-102.

Sherman, P.W., et. al. 1995. The eusociality continuum. Behavioral Ecology 6:102-108.

Human stuff:

Books:

Diamond, J. 1997. Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of human societies. Norton, New York.

Sulloway, F.J. 1996. Born to rebel: birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives. Vintage books, New York.

Articles:

Sohn, E. 2002. The gene that wouldn’t sit still. US New & World Report, 19 Aug
2002, pp50-51.

Not really a good journal but a cool article hypothesis on why some humans seem to roam and why ADD is more prevalent in the new world. I don’t totally agree but it’s a cool article none the less.

Kluger, J. 1996. Females in charge. The sex lives of apes raise provocative
questions for humans. Time 14, October 1996, p80.

Emlen, S.T. 1995. An evolutionary theory of the family. Proceeding of the National
Academy of Sciences USA 92:8092-8099.

Davis, J.N. and M. Daly. 1997. Evolutionary theory and the human family.
Quarterly Review of Biology 72:407-

Caspi, A. et. al. 2002. role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated
children. Science 297:851-854

Nature v. Nurture again. Apparently there is some of both in determining whether kids are evil.

[Seraphim]

by avalanche:ix

1. you call my views narrow because they conflict with yours. this is a typical human response when it involves hard held beliefs and presuppositions, but doesn't really invoke the reality of the situation.

My reply : That because you didn't get my whole picture and made your own assumptions which totally missed the point. ASK if you don't understand ... that is a proper "human" response (sarcasm here IF you can find it) involving discussions.

2. a narrow view is not by definition illogical, nor is a person who holds narrow views by definition illogical. logic itself is pretty narrow in fact. accepting certain logical outcomes, means you'll have to discard those that conflict with it, if their logical structure can be shown to be false. this may be perceived by you as narrow or illogical thinking, but in reality it's neither.

My reply : ONLY as narrow as the person who is bothering to think about it ...
I follow the same structural logic of that Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes (IF you got problem with fictional characters, just remember ... you're reading books on logics wrote by people whom you most likely never met).

Discard ALL other possiblities and the one which left, no matter how odd it maybe, is the answer.
In order to get the most logical possibilities, you must first analyse each and every possible outcome and eliminate what does fit the end result (in this case it is the behaviour pattern between humans and animals, or in some argument, existence of God). The one possibility which most likely bring to the same conclusion as you have at hand is the true one.

and you're obviously blatantly wrong as displayed for one by the dozens of people on this forum who don't believe in an afterlife, and yet participate in things like charity or a an actual personal offer of help to others in ways that does not benefit them directly.

you can't possibly be naieve enough to believe what you just said, if you do, then it's you with the narrow view and the illogical conclusions.

My reply : hmph ... this is why I called you "baaka" (refers to your level of intelligence).
Have we met? Have I seen ANY of you before? Have I seen you donate anything? The answer is NO, yet you use example of members of this forum who donates to others.

OFCOURSE they would . there IS NO afterlife, does that bother them? no, because they're indoctrinated and will believe it regardless of how often it's proved false. and furthermore, do you honestly believe their conflict to be one of purely religion? while religion plays a massive role in such conflicts, culture also plays an important rule, and also cause for much hostility, i would think this to be obvious.

My reply : Shows uncertainty. You said Of Course (as if you are sure they will fight even if they knows there is no afterlife) YET you use the word "they would" which means you are indeed not sure.

But there is a certain logic to your answer. You assume that they behave like everyone else. Guess what ... they don't behave like other people. Muslims are more close-minded than Christians and people who are more closed within attend to be more offensive than those who are less. Muslims will blow up this world along with everyone else before an Atheists world will exists which will undermine their "God".

i just do that because i have a neurological defect. these other people here don't.

My reply : O_o ... reason/excuse for premarital sex is neurological defect???
That's a new one ... mind explaining about this defect?

well, you ARE the theist here, aren't you?

i rest my case.

My reply : Yes, I'm theist here ... but I'm not out to change the world ...

You're an atheist ... so why are you behaving like a theists (like you described) and try to make a new world?
Christians out to make a Christian world, Muslims out to make Muslim world and Atheists out to make Atheist world ... frankly speaking, I don't see any difference between the three of you except when comes to acceptance of God.

Don't condemn theists for being narrow-minded ... you are much closer to them than you think.

[Seraphim]

by scombrid

You missed or ignored the part where I stated that these are not conscious decisions on the part of the animals but are genetically programmed behaviors. I never said that wild dogs had behaviors as complex as ours either. That’s irrelevant.

My reply : I didn't miss anything, I wanted to make sure you got that statement you wrote above correct. Now ponder this :

You said animals don't ponder anything because their genetics like that YET Humans do because humans developed complex thoughts.

Question no.1 - Does that make dogs suitable as a role model (or anything) to based human behavior upon? I don't think so.

Question no.2 - If dogs do not have complex thoughts as humans do, then they are not as intelligent as humans. IF they are not as intelligent as humans, then why should they be used as study case for anything related to humans?

Did you miss me writing this? This may occur [/u]3. when siblings become large enough that they take up too many resources or often comes when they reach reproductive age and will not be able to breed unless they get away from the dominant breeders in the group [/u]. Note that these decisions are not conscious decisions but are behaviors selected over time by bestowing greater reproductive success on their possessors.

My reply : We have two different type of animals - Hervibores and carnivores (there's a third - one where the creatures eat both meat and plant, forgot the name).
Both this types follow closely to each other and their survival depends on each other. Hervibores strive by condition of the land, and carnivores strive by condition of their preys.

Herbivores move when climate changed and returns to the same place years after years, carnivores follow their migration and again returns to the same spot again and again year after year. They do not venture across the globe, destroying flora and fauna and establish new colonies like humans do.

No offence, but I don't see where this "concept" of yours about animals moving out of their parent clans to establish themselves had anything to do with humans. And you may say that humans also migrated according to change in weather, the answer is NO. Only part of a colony moved to another location, another part stay in the same place, established colony and stays for generations. ANIMALS DON'T DO THAT.

Leopards hunt efficiently as solitary animals. Males leave because they can’t reproduce under the dominant male so it doesn’t pay to stick around. It only pays to stick around so long as maximizing benefit to your genes while you stay.

My reply : Correction - males stay to a certain age ONLY. In leapords, its two years period where it learn as much it can learn from others. IT doesn't stay in that group for years till some Alpha kicks it out. You are mistaken a leapord for a human living their parent's house.

Oversimplifying things a bit aren’t you. That doesn’t apply across the board. Look up mere cats.

My reply : Overkill the topics is not my style. What you been trying to apply don't seems to work because there is no link between humans and animals. Humans strived because of their intelligent made them special, animals strive because their survival instincts (called it emotions if you wants).

I did link it with human behavior later on. There are human societies where dominants get first crack and others get screwed regularly. It has been documented in dogs where subordinate males have made a kill without more dominant members present but have called in the rest of the pack when it would have been easy to get it’s fill first. Also, what about adolescent members puking up meals for their younger siblings? This occurs until the younger demand more food than their older siblings can supply. Surely the older siblings should just hog what they get under your ultra-simple system of “survival of the mostest strongest fittest”

My reply : You either don't know much about animal world or you are trying to hard to stick something where it doesn't fit.

The very fact that you agreed that subordinate members had to call the dominant ones to eat first shows my point that subordinates one are just simple members in that society and special privalieges don't exists for them - which includes mating.

And species like dogs and hyenas do not suckle (breastfeed) others of its own offspring. This is documented as well in National Geography. Do you know why? Simple, their milk is consider the most highly nutritional one of all species on the African plains (according to the scientists who actually did all the calculations etc) and for sake of survival, it preserves the milk for only its young. Also since food supply in form of meat get stolen easily, the mothers of raising youngling will eat it first and convert it into milk which no one could still.

Species such as leapords do suck other younglings (without caring whether the younglings are its siblings or not) because their milk is lower quality and the more quantity an offspring get, the higher the chance for its survival especially in early generations.

Some bird species like Penguins swallow their food because they cannot carry each fish back to their youngling one by one and also it is easier to carry inside their body then in the beak. When they return back to the youngling, they puke the already pre-digested food which the younglings could eat easily.

All this is simple tactics for survival in the wild. I don't see how it is related to humans in any way.

HMPH back at you. You didn’t study up on kin selection did you? If you are ill equipped to rear young alone, it pays to stick around and help rear relatives. Each of your brothers and sisters contains fifty percent of your genes. They are just about as valuable as your own children would be. You leave when the burden of siblings outweighs the benefits of raising your own kids. This obviously doesn’t apply to cats that do quite well alone. I’ll also note that your third link supports my position;
. Instead, we demonstrate direct, though long-delayed benefits to beta males, which include rare copulations, ascension to alpha status, and female lek-fidelity. These benefits maintain this unusual form of male-male cooperation.

My reply : Kin selection works to a certain degree and certain species ONLY. It can work with large hervivores and small animals which depends on survival and cooperations which the society, but that is just about it. Refer to my early post about simple tactics to survive.

Hmmm. It seems that the beta males have a vested interest besides simply being afraid of the strongest males. I might also note that in most human societies, “the entire male population” doesn’t breed either. Hmmm, now what about adolescent boys where the dorks are compelled to hang out with the cool kids? They basically lick the cool kid’s boots to remain in the group. You get more girls when you’re in the cool group even if the dominant group members get first crack at the hotties.

My reply : You applying this load of crap to your own society, is it? Maybe in the West, a person have to stick low enough to lick someone else's boots to poke a bitch which a few dozen already poked, but in the East it is different case.

First of all, ladies in the East (especially young ones) are not bitches (but increase of freemixing begin to change that). Their first insight of how a male should behave comes from within their own families. Females will judge other males by standards set upon by their father and their siblings and better or worse is something they judge based on their own opinions later on.

A guy who licks another person's boots to get crack at them as much change of scoring anything with Asian women (who comes from a decent family background) as a snowball's chance in hell.

And more so, Eastern societies still practise "Arrange Marriages" (Yes, even in Japan - most advance country in the East), such marriage still exists where it is the parents who interviews a candidate and their family and after checking all the background etc, introduce the couple where they will decide whether to marry or not. The whole culture has nothing to do about scoring with anyone.

Animals will migrate to a new area and settle if the habitat will support them. Coyotes have expanded their range all the way to the east coast as the US expanded and their competitor the wolf was eliminated and land clearing created more favorable open habitat. Some birds have successfully expanded their ranges as human activities have altered habitat. Ospreys have re-expanded their range as their population rebounds in the post DDT era and day markers provide excellent nest sites. Bears keep showing up in cities adjacent to the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge as the population reaches saturation and young break out looking for new habitat. This type of range expansion predates modern man’s meddling. The fossil record tracks the movement of the big cats from old world to new over time.
For man, resources on a local scale were likely limiting as well. That’s why there were hunter/gatherer nomadic groups. You can only kill so many animals or pick so many berries in one spot. Plentiful resources were in the form of room to roam. How is this different from animals following the season? There is no reason that conflicts over local resources didn’t drive human clans to splinter periodically.

My reply : Your statements about animals species maybe correct (considering that you are more talking about it and less about showing any links or evidence) but your assumptions on humans are very off the track.

IF humans behaved like animals which follow the nomadic hunter-gatherer ways, humanity could have stopped in a certain place and make habitats, establish farming community and thus civilisation. It could have be easier for them to roam the world because [I qoute your statement here ] "You can only kill so many animals or pick so many berries in one spot. "

You said an animal will migrate and settle in an area IF the habitat could support them. Guess what ... this alone shows that humans weren't animals. Mass extinction of flora and fauna is reported WHEREVER humans settled down showing that humans didn't rely on the habitat for their survival but shape it according to their needs.
In Discovery channel's "Eve : Journey of Man", it is said that the Megabeast of Australia had went extincted in just 10,000 years after arrival of Man to the lsland after living for milions of years.

NO ANIMAL have such track record ... or if you think I'm mistaken, please enlighten me.

Leopards aren’t really that social of an animal and do well enough alone once they’re old enough to do so. Inbreeding depression probably selected against any groups the never lose members to other groups or receive unrelated members.

My reply : I never heard about Inbreed depression or anything like that in the animal world before, may I ask for some links or something before accepting your statement?

Read the Old Testament. The goat herders that wrote the book lived just like your Alpha groups that you say contradict my analogy of wild animal behavior to modern human behavior. Remember all that stuff about killing the men and taking their virgins.

My reply : Old Testament? Mind telling me why I should behave like an animal when I can find better role models in Asian's literatures? And mind telling me as well that if someone behaved like an animal and wrote a book about it, it is logical to assume it is a proper book to follow and follow it? That is not logic, that is stupidity in your part.

That advanced intelligence is missing from the picture is why animal behavior is nice to study. It is base and instinctual. Cultural evolution has muddled basic inherited behavior but patterns are still there. I’ll post a list of resources for this area of study.

My reply : I don't even see where the basic part of the animal trend here. As I stated before, humans' behavior was a bit odd to begin with. Animals follow changes in the environment, live with the nature and strive not to change anything, the very migration of humans alone shows that humans didn't follow the animal's trends.

This is crap. The days when Americans behaved more like animals were in the days of slavery and segregation and the days predating women’s suffrage. We’ve actually improved. Ignorance is a huge problem these days though.

My reply : Same ignorance existed then, same now. In those days, ignorance and arogance appeared because of religion (Christianity), now it appears because of Science and Technology. Americans (hell ... the whole freaking Western society) assumed that if you educate a person with science, it is enough for him or her to live a proper life.

Your society which is indeed advance in science is full with premarital sexual activities to the extend it is not a wrong thing anymore but something of natural (MY FOOT!), porns which corrupts young people's minds, lack of values such as family value etc and even your own government is embodiment of fear and paranoid where it is too busy been scared of its own shadows (after Pearl Harbour and 911).

No. It’s nice to help understand why people do what they do sometimes.

My reply : Fine, acceptable.

You never have answered why the irreligious in the West exhibit the lowest crime rates.

My reply : Cause I didn't understand the question. Are you asking why crime rate in the west is low? If that is the question, you could provide me with some statics which I can base my reply on.

I’ll finish this post by saying that without theism things won’t change much. Tribalism would just find another source of dogma to fight over.

My reply : I finish my post by agreeing with you. Nothing will change whether you are a Theist or an Atheist, because bottomline is you're a human (NOT an animal) and humans comes with various weaknesses (greed, lust, anger etc) which is the cause of most of its problems. Religions is only an excuse for humans to use to fight one another.

[Fiach]

Originally posted by avalanche:ix
do you not comprehend the concept of relative numbers? you know, this many out of a thousand people have tv's in that country and this many in that country, that sort of thing. your objection indicates you do not comprehend this concept.

I do. That is why I posted the fact that religiosity correlates positively with