Future of religion questioned as atheists gather

[Australian Bigot]

Palawa wrote:

<quoted text>
If you need a moral code to live by, you are ideologist. Few animals randomly kill, or destroy the environment, nor do they enslave other life forms for their pleasure, greed and gluttony, ideologists do that.

I found this an interesting read, I had a pretty hard childhood and I came out good, But my cousin also had a hard childhood and he was always violent and evil, always wondered why until I read about this.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

[nanoanomaly]

Australian Bigot wrote:

<quoted text>
Being a good person, I don't think it takes a moral code, just naturally not wanting to hurt other people usually helps out a lot, if you need a moral code to keep you from hurting other people then you are an animal.

You think that animals with lower cognitive functioning than humans have a "moral code"? That IS funny. How many animals can you think of that are capable of resisting indulging in instant gratification of the urge to eat or have sex... or kill?

[nanoanomaly]

Palawa wrote:

<quoted text>
If you need a moral code to live by, you are ideologist. Few animals randomly kill, or destroy the environment, nor do they enslave other life forms for their pleasure, greed and gluttony, ideologists do that.

Oh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Really?

I've seen dogs kill for pleasure.

[LMR]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>You think that animals with lower cognitive functioning than humans have a "moral code"? That IS funny. How many animals can you think of that are capable of resisting indulging in instant gratification of the urge to eat or have sex... or kill?

They will resist these urges if they are fearful of another dominant member of the group who would punish them for these acts.

[sid]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>You think that animals with lower cognitive functioning than humans have a "moral code"? That IS funny. How many animals can you think of that are capable of resisting indulging in instant gratification of the urge to eat or have sex... or kill?

Spot on, It's just as well that animals have an instinctive mode of conduct, if they reverted to human behaviour [backward evolutionary step] the human race would be in deep shite.

[sid]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>Oh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Really?
I've seen dogs kill for pleasure.

Excellent video but hardly typical of widespread behaviour in the wild, some frightening human parallels there. I don't think dogs kill for pleasure [except domesticated] as such but more for dominance.

[nanoanomaly]

LMR wrote:

<quoted text>
They will resist these urges if they are fearful of another dominant member of the group who would punish them for these acts.

That behavior has nothing to do with being ethical; it's only about saving their own hide not because they might actually feel remorse for killing and/or eating another creature, or copulating with an alpha member's mate. An animal is still going to "do the deed" as soon as it thinks it's safe to do so.

[Richardfs]

ZombieBabyJesus wrote:

<quoted text>
Why would there be "moral decay"?
ZBJ

Because....

[nanoanomaly]

sid wrote:

<quoted text>
Excellent video but hardly typical of widespread behaviour in the wild, some frightening human parallels there. I don't think dogs kill for pleasure [except domesticated] as such but more for dominance.

When a dog stalks and kills another animal but doesn't eat it then it killed for pleasure only.
I saw a video of two pitbulls who broke into a neighbor's rabbit hutch and killed until they were too tired and overcome by the heat, only to get up and kill 20 more rabbits and didn't eat a single one of the corpses. They were clearly overcome and enjoying their throes of blood lust.

[sid]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>When a dog stalks and kills another animal but doesn't eat it then it killed for pleasure only.
I saw a video of two pitbulls who broke into a neighbor's rabbit hutch and killed until they were too tired and overcome by the heat, only to get up and kill 20 more rabbits and didn't eat a single one of the corpses. They were clearly overcome and enjoying their throes of blood lust.

Pit bulls have been breed and trained to kill, bit of a stretch to say they do it for pleasure, pit bulls will go for anything that moves human or otherwise when they go berko.

[SupaAussie]

EXPOSED. Father or should i say Ex father bob mc guire said last week, adam and eve was made up BS.
And Ex father bob was one of the most honest people on this earth.

[Celtic Bard]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>Oh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Really?
I've seen dogs kill for pleasure.

I think you have touched upon a point that the Hippy Palawlalala, thinks what he knows is always right.

Unfortunately most 'hippies' think that to kill for the sake of killing it is primarily a human condition, bar a few animals...Well guess what Palalwlalaal is espousing to know, when he is not accurate at all, again.........A few animals??? Here is a 'few' and it was hardly a look into google.....LOL

Feral Dogs

Domestic Cats

Feral Cats

Ants

Lions

Cuckoo Birds

Apparently Dolphins (?)

Ferrets

Weasels.

Elephants unknowingly destroy their environment (Trees...)

and the list goes on..........

[sid]

Celtic Bard wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you have touched upon a point that the Hippy Palawlalala, thinks what he knows is always right.
Unfortunately most 'hippies' think that to kill for the sake of killing it is primarily a human condition, bar a few animals...Well guess what Palalwlalaal is espousing to know, when he is not accurate at all, again.........A few animals??? Here is a 'few' and it was hardly a look into google.....LOL
Feral Dogs
Domestic Cats
Feral Cats
Ants
Lions
Cuckoo Birds
Apparently Dolphins (?)
Ferrets
Weasels.
Elephants unknowingly destroy their environment (Trees...)
and the list goes on..........

I think the killing that happens in the natural world is for breeding rights, territiry, dominance which are all related to survival of that particular species, I am not saying amimals don't experience pleasure but I find it hard to believe they kill for pleasure. Domesticated dogs and cats may kill out of jealousy, to protect their masters or for reward [bit doubtful] but I don't get the pleasure angle.

[LMR]

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>That behavior has nothing to do with being ethical; it's only about saving their own hide not because they might actually feel remorse for killing and/or eating another creature, or copulating with an alpha member's mate. An animal is still going to "do the deed" as soon as it thinks it's safe to do so.

Then humans are more like other animals than most of us care to recognise.

[Celtic Bard]

sid wrote:

<quoted text>
I think the killing that happens in the natural world is for breeding rights, territiry, dominance which are all related to survival of that particular species, I am not saying amimals don't experience pleasure but I find it hard to believe they kill for pleasure. Domesticated dogs and cats may kill out of jealousy, to protect their masters or for reward [bit doubtful] but I don't get the pleasure angle.

Perhaps, but I did say killing for the sake of killing not for pleasure. A number sites that would verify this if you wish to persue.

[EdSed]

Palawa wrote:

<quoted text>
Morality is all about religion, each religion, faction or other ideology all have their different views of what morality is and how they approach them. There is a universal law of ethics which seems to govern intelligent life on this planet and is probably seem throughout the universe. Sadly the religious don't fit into any form of intelligence other than primitively insane.

I think that non-believers shoot ourselves in the foot badly when we fail to emphasise that morality has nothing to do with religion. Morality appears to have evolutionary roots and it is our ability to determine right and wrong which comes from our nature and nurture - facts some religionists seem to need to resist at all costs.

Religion is primarily parent-given (as is morality perhaps) but muddling together what should be kept discrete seems one particularly harmful aspect of religion.

One of the strengths of western (or any) society has been its success in keeping different concepts discrete from one another and identify specifically and correctly if, how and where they should be linked.

The only specific connections between religion and morality that I can think of are the use of scripture to teach morals (one can use all kinds of big books) and all the insistances of relgionists insisting religion and morality aren't separable. The article on this thread illustrates the confusion of mind very well...
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
JMHO

[EdSed]

Re: Decline of Religion, UK, FYI, Courtesy National Secular Soc (UK)...
Easter polls show that Britons are, in the main, uninterested in religion

An Easter Saturday YouGov poll for The Sun, in which a representative sample of 1,742 adults aged 18 and over was interviewed online, found that 31% of respondents thought schools should have religious assemblies, while16% said that they should not be allowed. The largest group (48%) wanted schools to be able to decide for themselves. 5% expressed no opinion.

56% of Britons agreed that people should have the right to wear religious symbols at work (the question was asked despite the fact that such a right already exists except in very limited circumstances). Only 11% disagreed, with 24% feeling that it is for employers to decide, and 9% uncertain.

Easter's religious meaning is important to only 17% of Britons, while 43% said it was more important to them to spend time with family and friends – and only 2% nominated the exchange of Easter eggs.

79% of respondents had no plans to go to church over the Easter period, 16% thought they might (three-quarters of them on Easter Sunday), with 5% uncertain. On previous form it is highly unlikely that the intentions of the 16% were translated into reality.

Weddings and funerals excluded, 12% claimed to be regular (monthly or more) churchgoers ordinarily, with 20% going very occasionally and 66% never or less than once a year.

54% said they never prayed while 19% claimed that they prayed on a daily or near-daily basis. 45% were adamant that prayer is ineffective while 31% believed that prayer actually works, with 24% unsure.

87% considered Britain to be less religious than fifty years ago.

Another Easter-related poll released by Travelodge,(which interviewed 5,000 Britons) found 40% had no interest in the religious side of Easter and an incredible (and we mean that literally) 28% said they would observe Good Friday as a fast day. 82% had no intention of going to church. 53% of children did not know the meaning of Easter, and one-quarter reckoned it is about celebrating the Easter Bunny's birthday.
Unquote.

Religion seems (to me) to be kept in a better and healthier perspective in the UK than in the USA.

[ex ambo]

Some of the best "Christians" I've met have been atheists.

[sid]

ex ambo wrote:

Some of the best "Christians" I've met have been atheists.

I know exactly what you are talking about.
Some of the best christians I've meet would thump you if you called them a christian.

[nanoanomaly]

LMR wrote:

<quoted text>
Then humans are more like other animals than most of us care to recognise.

Yes, we are, very much. Many of us live lives full of deception which includes our delusion of believing that we are more virtuous than other animals. We claim to live by moral codes that the less intelligent beasts could, or can, but we are far worse in our delighting in murdering our perceived enemies "en masse". Many humans simply "pretend" to experience love and compassion, or remorse. They don't "feel" those emotions but know that society expects them to and go on living their lives/lies believing that they are superior to the other beasts. Strange, huh?