Lagboltz
Well-Known Member
Yeah, you got to watch those Lefties. They can be pretty irritating at times. Unlike Gipper who always has kind and sensitive words to his adversaries.Yes she did..and it wasn't nice...about 4 pages long...
Yeah, you got to watch those Lefties. They can be pretty irritating at times. Unlike Gipper who always has kind and sensitive words to his adversaries.Yes she did..and it wasn't nice...about 4 pages long...
Say Gipper, you might consider that some things are beyond your scoffing intuition. I just ran across this link in today's newspaper. Research published in Nature was done on babies too young to have a cultural bias to see if babies had some instinctive moral attributes.That has to be one of the most absurd things I have ever read. You really believe humans are born with an innate goodness and an ability to decipher morality and truth...by instinct. Yeah we just evolved into being and doing good....then why do some humans do bad? Did they not evolve?
Too funny.....beyond hilarious.
Nature said:... we show that 6- and 10-month-old infants take into account an individual’s actions towards others .... These findings constitute evidence that preverbal infants assess individuals on the basis of their behaviour towards others. This capacity may serve as the foundation for moral thought and action, and its early developmental emergence supports the view that social evaluation is a biological adaptation.
Say Gipper, you might consider that some things are beyond your scoffing intuition. I just ran across this link in today's newspaper. Research published in Nature was done on babies too young to have a cultural bias to see if babies had some instinctive moral attributes.
From http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7169/full/nature06288.html
The instincts are clan survival instincts. Some internal clan requirements can be construed as moral such as sharing. However if there is a competing clan, then survival of the clan can lead to territorial belligerence between different clans such huffing at each other from the treetops. We human primates have escalated that chauvinistic behavior to killing, enslaving, etc. as you point out. I wouldn't consider that clan instinct as moral behavior either.It is silly to believe that human's are INSTINCTIVELY good. That somehow without any moral understanding or teaching, humans know the difference between good and evil and instinctively chose good. In addition, to believe this absurdity, one has to ignore the history of human existence. If one word had to be used to describe all of human history, MURDER would be that word.
You are an admitted leftist. You have admitted that you believe killing the unborn is appropriate. So, how is it that you or anyone who believes as you do, can claim morality when you have no problem killing babies. Apparently your definition of good and mine, are two different things.
The instincts are clan survival instincts. Some internal clan requirements can be construed as moral such as sharing. However if there is a competing clan, then survival of the clan can lead to territorial belligerence between different clans such huffing at each other from the treetops. We human primates have escalated that chauvinistic behavior to killing, enslaving, etc. as you point out. I wouldn't consider that clan instinct as moral behavior either.
As far as abortion, I think Roe-Wade is about right. Your definition of moral is certainly different.
^^^^ Well I happen to find your rejection of evolution is anti-science. And you should know that when I call someone anti-science it is a worse insult than when call me "appalling and disgusting". Do you believe the earth is about 6 thousand years old and put together in less than seven days?
I saw statistics somewhere that there is a much larger majority of college professors who are progressives and atheists than in the general population. Of course academics generally consider themselves more "enlightened." So that may explain what you see.But, very interestingly, I see a few trends in what some are calling the new atheism:
1) Anger and hostility, wrapped up in arrogance and pride - that such atheists see themselves as much more enlightened (and thus - implied - more intelligent) than those who believe in some version of a God.
I agree that there is more anger. Speaking for myself I think Christians are getting bolder more recently about trying to undo areas that progressives fought hard for in the Scopes trial, Roe vs Wade, and contraception. There are more overt attempts at putting creationism in science classes, suppressing abortion, and attempting to eliminate Planned Parenthood, etc. That is increasing our anger.2) The anger they have seems odd - it's as IF they believe that people of belief (whatever that belief might be) wrongfully believe in some type of God that they believe doesn't exist - and so WHY THEIR ANGER? Unless there is some harm done by those of belief, then what - or WHO - are they actually angry at? They often act as if they are angry at something (or Someone) that actually exists? But if they believe there is no God or afterlife, then why their anger? Doesn't make much sense.
Hindus Muslims, etc. are not pushing the agenda that are angering progressives.3) Atheists don't typically rant against Hindus or Muslims, etc., but they seem hyper obsessed with Jesus and Christianity. Now, why would that be - IF Christianity is just another option of a long list of supposedly non-existent deities? TIA
After being rather marginalized most of my 57 years, atheists are now becoming much more vocal. Are these just the so-called "New Atheists?" I don't know. But now we're starting to see billboards and advertisements - not just advocating belief in nothing but advocacy that attacks the beliefs of others..I know you have seen it on these boards and many others...(the height of intolerance).
But, very interestingly, I see a few trends in what some are calling the new atheism:
1) Anger and hostility, wrapped up in arrogance and pride - that such atheists see themselves as much more enlightened (and thus - implied - more intelligent) than those who believe in some version of a God.
2) The anger they have seems odd - it's as IF they believe that people of belief (whatever that belief might be) wrongfully believe in some type of God that they believe doesn't exist - and so WHY THEIR ANGER? Unless there is some harm done by those of belief, then what - or WHO - are they actually angry at? They often act as if they are angry at something (or Someone) that actually exists? But if they believe there is no God or afterlife, then why their anger? Doesn't make much sense.
3) Atheists don't typically rant against Hindus or Muslims, etc., but they seem hyper obsessed with Jesus and Christianity. Now, why would that be - IF Christianity is just another option of a long list of supposedly non-existent deities? TIA
^^^ The content of your post is about as meaningful as that of a barking junkyard dog straining on it's leash.