Today is National Ask an Atheist Day

[Hartsock]

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

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

 

[babe]

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

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

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

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

 

[babe]

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

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

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

 

[Hartsock]

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

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

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

 

[Darkwing Duck]

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

 

[One Brow]

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

 

[Darkwing Duck]

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

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

 

[One Brow]

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

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

 

[Darkwing Duck]

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

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

 

[Sandy Braille]

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

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

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

 

[Darkwing Duck]

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

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

 

[One Brow]

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

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

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

I largely agree with you there.