Really can't argue, I'm a meat eater, but it does make sense that we have not developed canine teeth and our hands are more appropriate for fruit and vegetables rather than tearing meat apart. It's also been suggested that humans should only eat meat once a weak to cut down on dietary risks.
God in our Image?
- Thread starter PilgrimsProgress
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Humans have four canine teeth - two on both the upper and lower jawline. Because we're omnivores (and always have been) they're less developed than the canine teeth of true carnivores - also we don't hunt in the same way as most carnivores, so really don't need them for that primary purpose of grasping and killing prey - but they're there. They're essentially small fangs. Their very presence suggests that some meat eating is normal for humans.
There are many herbivores with canine teeth. eg. gorillas Ours are small and are more closely associated with herbivores.
How did we get on this topic?
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Cause it's interesting.
The DNA of mammals has been found in gorilla scat. There are several possibilities as to how it got there, but it isn't as absolutely certain as many suggest that gorillas don't eat meat. Captive gorillas aren't fed meat, but we still know surprisingly little about wild gorillas. And most other great apes - including chimpanzees (who are the closest evolutionary relatives to humans) are definitely known to be meat-eaters.
Pavlos Maros
Well-Known Member
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
You missed the point completely. Religious doctrine can lead someone to do a bad thing, even if they are a good person. Atheism has no such doctrine. so it cannot lead to bad deeds, yes an atheist can be a bad person but the bad deed will not be because of his atheism. there is no pathway from "I do not belief in god therefore". but there is in "I believe in god and god wants me to do this". That's where you err.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
That is not what you said. You quoted Weinberg:
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion."
I'm taking issue with Weinberg. For good people to do evil requires a cause - not necessarily religion.
You've introduced something that goes beyond Weinberg's quote. If you want to discuss your views then offer your views to start with. In fact, since your view expressed above doesn't really require or even relate to Weinberg's quote there was no real need to introduce Weinberg's quote. By only offering the Weinberg quote it's not unreasonable to assume that you're proposing to discuss Weinberg's quote without your commentary.
As puffed up as you are, you really have no concept of how to present an argument because you insist on presenting a moving target, so that when you're blocked on one approach you simply back up and move to another.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Having said that, let me answer what now seems to be your position.
Atheism is by its very nature neutral. It has no inherent beliefs. It is, for example, not a disbelief in God or gods, but a principle that basically says that in the absence of objective evidence for the existence of God or gods I choose not to believe in God or gods. It rightly acknowledges that one cannot be absolutely certain that there is neither God nor gods, given the difficulty involved in proving the non-existence of something. It is, however, a much firmer position than agnosticism, which basically tries to straddle the fence and states that "I'm just not sure either way. Maybe/ maybe not." Atheism is actually much like theism. Neither can "prove" their position with objective evidence; but both take a firm stand.
You are right. Atheism (given its lack of "doctrine" - the lack of which is an essential component of real atheism) cannot of itself motivate a person to either positive or negative action. But few people are simply atheists with no other beliefs, prejudices, opinions, etc. Once a "cause" is introduced into the life of the atheist, then the atheist may be motivated to action (either positive or negative) by their passionate belief in the "cause." Thus, an atheist who is "good" by humanist standards can be motivated to do "evil" by their passionate belief in the "cause." Again - by belief that the ends justify the means. (I would argue the same about theism by the way - it isn't simply one's belief in God or gods that motivates one to action; it's the nature of the God or gods one chooses to believe in, or the arguments of those they choose as religious teachers, that moves them to action. Again - not really much different from atheism.)
Now, there is a harder stance than atheism. There are simply people who say "There is no God" as opposed to those who say "There is no evidence for God, therefore I don't believe." I'm not sure there's a specific name for it. I'd call it anti-theist as opposed to a-theist.
Atheism is by its very nature neutral. It has no inherent beliefs. It is, for example, not a disbelief in God or gods, but a principle that basically says that in the absence of objective evidence for the existence of God or gods I choose not to believe in God or gods. It rightly acknowledges that one cannot be absolutely certain that there is neither God nor gods, given the difficulty involved in proving the non-existence of something. It is, however, a much firmer position than agnosticism, which basically tries to straddle the fence and states that "I'm just not sure either way. Maybe/ maybe not." Atheism is actually much like theism. Neither can "prove" their position with objective evidence; but both take a firm stand.
You are right. Atheism (given its lack of "doctrine" - the lack of which is an essential component of real atheism) cannot of itself motivate a person to either positive or negative action. But few people are simply atheists with no other beliefs, prejudices, opinions, etc. Once a "cause" is introduced into the life of the atheist, then the atheist may be motivated to action (either positive or negative) by their passionate belief in the "cause." Thus, an atheist who is "good" by humanist standards can be motivated to do "evil" by their passionate belief in the "cause." Again - by belief that the ends justify the means. (I would argue the same about theism by the way - it isn't simply one's belief in God or gods that motivates one to action; it's the nature of the God or gods one chooses to believe in, or the arguments of those they choose as religious teachers, that moves them to action. Again - not really much different from atheism.)
Now, there is a harder stance than atheism. There are simply people who say "There is no God" as opposed to those who say "There is no evidence for God, therefore I don't believe." I'm not sure there's a specific name for it. I'd call it anti-theist as opposed to a-theist.
Last edited:
revjohn
Well-Known Member
revsdd said:
I thought that since Christians are prone to triteisms and shallow cliche's the quote was meant to be a showstopper.
Asking for evidence shows poor form on your part.
Can't you just accept, on faith, that Weinberg is correct?
Or maybe your faith isn't as strong as you imagine it to be hmmmmmmmm?
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
See I don't see atheism and agnosticism as different points on the same continuum at all.
I see theism as one scale, with non-theism, or a-theism at one end and pantheism and panentheism and process theology somewhere in the middle, and a classic "big guy in the sky" monotheism on the other end.
I see agnosticism (the continuum of gnosis) as a simple scale of certainty, from "I'm absolutely sure of my position" on one end to a "Meh, could be this or that and I'm not bothered" at the other.
I see theism as one scale, with non-theism, or a-theism at one end and pantheism and panentheism and process theology somewhere in the middle, and a classic "big guy in the sky" monotheism on the other end.
I see agnosticism (the continuum of gnosis) as a simple scale of certainty, from "I'm absolutely sure of my position" on one end to a "Meh, could be this or that and I'm not bothered" at the other.
revjohn
Well-Known Member
I hope that chicken bone is raw.
At any rate my Rose, at 15 years of age mostly deaf and slightly blind would start with the butter tart.
But only because she knows she could wolf it down and be on the bone before you thought to retrieve it. She may have gotten the terrier's size she definitely got the Lab capacity to eat and eat and eat.
Ravenous.
She's got more hollow legs than we could possibly count.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
The one @chansen used to post was nice in that regard. It was a 2-D graph with theism on one axis (with theist at one end and atheist at the other) and gnosticism on the other (ranging from gnostic, in the sense of knowing not the cult, to agnostic). So one could be agnostic and theist, or gnostic and atheist, or ... I forget how something like pantheism fit in there. It's a bit weird in that many modern pantheists believe in nature as a holy thing without it being a personality like the Christian God. Guess that puts it somewhere in the middle.
Anyhow, I imagine it's somewhere on here. Maybe @chansen should put it on his "wall" so we can find and reference it easily.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Although we could consider both gnostic and agnostic on a separate spectrum because they can apply to realms other than religion and theism, in the context of this discussion I wouldn't agree with separate spectrums, simply because Gnosticism is a form of theism and therefore belongs on the theistic spectrum. Gnostics believed in God. The difference between it and what became orthodox Christianity is in the nature of divine revelation (and, therefore, wisdom and knowledge.) In that context, agnosticism is essentially lack of revelation or wisdom or knowledge of God. But both, in this context, relate to theism.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Right, but I did say that "gnosticism" in this case isn't the same as "Gnosticism". The chart was using it to mean "knowing" versus a-gnostic as "unknowing". It's not a good choice of word, but it is the actual opposite of agnosticism. Capital "G" Gnosticism is the "cult" I referred to.
crazyheart
Rest In Peace: tomorrow,tomorrow
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
"In the image of God he created them. He created them male and female. God blessed them and said [L to them], 'Have many children and grow in number [T Be fruitful and multiply]. Fill […and fill] the earth and be its master [subdue it]. Rule [T Have dominion] over the fish in the sea and over the birds in the sky [heavens] and over every living thing that moves on the earth.' God said, “Look, I have given you all the plants that have grain for seeds [L on the face of the earth] and all the trees whose fruits have seeds in them. They will be food for you.'" - Genesis 1:27b-29 (EXB).
Pontifex Geronimo 13
#walkaway
I thought Dominion was a kind of BBQ sauce.
So obviously you have Dominion over all the animals and fish.
So obviously you have Dominion over all the animals and fish.