13 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, I never said that my statement was based on my own experience or a sampling in one country. I only gave those as examples not as a single basis for the statement.
No, I never said that my statement was based on my own experience or a sampling in one country. I only gave those as examples not as a single basis for the statement.
Do you believe it is false or do you just wish to show that my statement might be wrong?
Let us start with this claim: more than 50% of racists have historically been theist. Can you give one country where you feel this might be false?
Fair enough.
Do you believe it is false or do you just wish to show that my statement might be wrong?
I think it impossible to gauge.
Let us start with this claim: more than 50% of racists have historically been theist. Can you give one country where you feel this might be false?
Racism is certainly not a modern phenomenon -- it's permeated many human societies and cultures (for various reasons) through most of known history. It would be presumptuous on my part (and hence IMO on yours) to even think of knowing which demographic to seclude it to. The irony not being lost on me that you tend to be prejudiced towards theists: it's no longer racism, by beliefism.
13 Dec 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBigotry is a natural result of evolution. The tendency to favor organisms with genes closest to your own. This does not justify bigotry.
Clearly bigotry is not caused by atheism or theism, so where does it come from?
However it is compounded by ignorance and the spreading of beliefs over time.
There may also be some element of an evolutionary effect based on the benefits of sticking with similar minded individuals.
13 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadBigotry is a natural result of evolution... This does [b]not justify bigotry.[/b]
Bigotry is a natural result of evolution. The tendency to favor organisms with genes closest to your own. This does [b]not justify bigotry.
However it is compounded by ignorance and the spreading of beliefs over time.
There may also be some element of an evolutionary effect based on the benefits of sticking with similar minded individuals.[/b]
Really? So essentially you are saying that if something is "natural", that of itself cannot be used as justification for doing it? It's good to know; I'll keep this for later use, thanks.
On what grounds then, as an atheist, do you differentiate "right" from "wrong"?
13 Dec 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI'm not contesting its occurrence. You could just as well have linked me to "wiki/altruism_in_humans"; it doesn't demonstrate how altruism in the true sense of the word gives the creature a competitive advantage. Let me explain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals
I guess the first example you could jump on, is altruism amongst kin (e.g. a mother raising a child, etc), but by that definition, most species demonstrate a form of altruism. I'm more interested in the form of altruism where it goes beyond familial borders.
13 Dec 06
Originally posted by HalitoseThe article explains quite nicely how altruism has evolutionary benefits, so to speak.
I guess the first example you could jump on, is altruism amongst kin (e.g. a mother raising a child, etc), but by that definition, most species demonstrate a form of altruism. I'm more interested in the form of altruism where it goes beyond familial borders.
I'm not sure you read the article--here's another example:
Walruses have been seen adopting orphans who lost their parents to predators. (altruism outside the "family unit"😉
And
Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks and even tigers
(extra-species altruism!)
So...you were saying?
13 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt is most definitely not confined to our species.
I suppose altruism is also a natural result of evolution. What a contradictory species.
The two effects continually fight against each other.(Selfishness and altruism) The result is a balance between the two which sways from side to side with individuals biased on one side or the other.
It is a case of a certain behavior only being beneficial when exhibited by some members of the group.
For example a thief can most definitely benefit from his behavior. But if everyone becomes a thief then the whole society breaks down. The same applies to violent behavior.
Almost all animals exhibit competition for mates where there is a balance between a selfish competition for a mate without going to the extreme of severely damaging the whole group.