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.




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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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

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

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/kil...alphamales.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

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.



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.


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.



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




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

i rest my case.

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.


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.

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


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”


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.


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.


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.

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.


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.





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.



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.