I read posts here that call different things, "harmful to humanity." Others call something, "good" or "bad" or "evil."
A very simple question, who gets to decide the definition of "harmful to humanity" and what is there critieria? The same for "good," "bad," and "evil?" These are not material terms. If everything is material isn't there just "is" and not these moral declarations if one is being thoroughly atheist?
Help me understand your position so I am fair and honest about the views. Thanks.
No ...here just listening. Sapiens qui vigilat.
Yes, the wretched saint has fled. I miss his earnest sincerity.
I take the sincere comment to heart. But watch out about calling me earnest or I'll cook someone's dog. ha!
Ok. This topic has certainly gone off the rails. :)
Alright, from the top here.
Given the above framework, racism, animal cruelty, and so on, are not actually immoral, but they are unacceptable within our modern culture and usually counterproductive to the common weal. Given that, such patterns of thought or practice should be persuaded against if at all possible. And, yes, other animals engage in forms of animal cruelty and racism with regards to their own species or other species - it's common and natural - and causes distress for many human observers. Why? Because that's just how we are typically as a species.
We are not animals. We do have a much higher degree of thought and processing problems. I've never seen an animal smelt Copper, Iron, Silver or Gold. Nor would an animal perform sex purely for pleasure. Well in most cases. Our degree of caring for loved ones, offspring and friends goes way beyond anything most animals can feel or even understand. Therefore we are not animals. But yes we are mammals of the species Homo-sapiens.
We are not animals! Sounds a bit like cough* Christian* Cough dogma. That's exactly what we are. Cherry picking some attributes that only some humans have to try to make a case for being somehow apart from the animal kingdon seems like quite an arbirary approach. What about the insane, chronically senile, severely mentally handicapped? Are they animals by virture of the fact they don't have the attributes you have chosen?
@ John - The difference between animals and humans is the FOXP2 gene. Animals don't have it. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Different.htm
Mabel, you are an animal! Get used to it. I thought atheists were more likely to accept scientific fact What do you have against animals? (Other than cats, of course) You pet your cat and eat anyone other creature without a thought to compassion. If you are not an animal, did god create you in his FoxP2 image?
@ Dogly - I am not an animal!
"The Elephant Man" at 2:30
Department of Oral Sciences, Nano and Biotechnologies, G. D'Annunzio University, Via dei Vestini 31, 66100 Chieti, Italy. email@example.com
We report on a 10-year-old patient with childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) and mild dysmorphic features. Although multiple karyotypes were reported as normal, a bacterial artificial chromosome array comparative genomic hybridization revealed the presence of a de novo 14.8-Mb mosaic deletion of chromosome 7q31. The deleted region involved several genes, including FOXP2, which has been associated with CAS. Interestingly, the deletion reported here was observed in about 50% of cells, which is the first case of mosaicism in a 7q31 deletion. Despite the presence of the deletion in only 50% of cells, the phenotype of the patient was not milder than other published cases. To date, 6 cases with a deletion of 9.1-20 Mb involving the FOXP2 gene have been reported, suggesting a new contiguous gene deletion syndrome characterized mainly by CAS caused by haploinsufficiency of the genes encompassed in the 7q critical region. This report suggests that children found with a deletion involving the FOXP2 region should be evaluated for CAS and that analysis of the FOXP2 gene including array comparative genomic hybridization should be considered in selected patients with CAS. Mosaic deletions in this area may also be considered as causative of CAS.
@ Dogly - No, the child is fathered in under the grand-father clause.
Mabel, did I understand you to mean that this child is not human? Is this child an animal just "fathered in" as though human? But, you are Not an animal?