Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
GCSTroop, your discussion of the dynamics of dominance by the alpha male isn't applicable just to dogs. It represents the primitive understanding of humans as well. Spend some time in a prison and you'll see exactly the same principle at work.
GCSTroop, your discussion of the dynamics of dominance by the alpha male isn't applicable just to dogs. It represents the primitive understanding of humans as well. Spend some time in a prison and you'll see exactly the same principle at work.
Oh no, I fully understand that 100%. I wasn't sure if the Christians would catch on, but we are pack animals as well. In fact, most mammals are pack animals. They all have different standards by which they live but it is the same universally for all breeds. In other words, the female lion always does the hunting no matter what part of the Sahara they are in. And your example of a prison is perfect because it is at that point where man is no longer man but he is an animal trying to survive.
Frankly, I don't see much difference between the so-called "Alpha Male" concept and leadership in society,in general. There are people by force of their personality who in society are just going to naturally be leaders. And because of their dominant personality and often self-confidence, others will perceive them this way. Sometimes this is a male, and sometimes it is a female.
Frankly, I don't see much difference between the so-called "Alpha Male" concept and leadership in society,in general. There are people by force of their personality who in society are just going to naturally be leaders. And because of their dominant personality and often self-confidence, others will perceive them this way. Sometimes this is a male, and sometimes it is a female.
Yes, wolves (from which domesticated dogs decended) are alpha female.
It's not that we have a version of morals where evil does not exist. But, doing a real quick check on the internet, you'll find that the most embattled places; the ones with the highest amounts of crime, "martyrism", and what we could consider a "lack of morals" are by and large nations with a very high religious population. I'll help you name a few: U.S. Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Congo, Pakistan and India (Peshawar), Afghanistan, Iran on and on on. Now, let's look at countries that are by and large atheist. Now, I want you to remember something. You linked communism with atheism and I expect you wanted to get a rise out of us by doing so. But, what is the purpose of atheism in a communist society? Why do the leaders enforce it? They enforce it so that the leaders are looked at as GODS. Remember from "Animal Farm" - "Four legs good, two legs bad"?
I think that the communist leaders simply don't want to acknowledge that a higher power could exist beside themselves. Unlike Christian/Western leaders, who try to acknowledge their weaknesses, shortcomings and human frailities.
I've always admired communism's way of sharing scarce resources, but their practice of a totalitarian lifestyle without freedoms of expression (art, music, literature, speech) and religion (personal philosphy) is grossly unjust - a.k.a. immoral.
There's some Muslim countries that seem to treat women unjustly, without allowing education or the freedom to be like normal humans too walk around freely.
Some parts of the world seem to be on a whole different timeline than ours, much like when the American Indians first met the Europeans.
Not that our religion is better, but it does seem to be more just.
How many wives should a man have and does it matter?
This is a question that religions might disagree on. But are there ramifications for societies that practice polygamy, and can those be considered to be divine consequences?
That's a valid question, isn't it?
It may not matter to a wolf, but as far as human morality, are there no limits?
Is consent by all of the parties good enough, or is there something inherently immoral about it?
This should be a cutting edge question for atheists.
The same can be asked about incest.
Or sodomy.
Or beastiality.
Should the world just be free of any religious morality?
If atheists were able to decide, which world would they choose, one with conventional boundaries or one without? And how would those boundaries be justified to people, with brute force and without reason?
To me, it seems that pure atheism would advocate a type of moral anarchy.
I think that God instilled basic morals within ALL humans. A basic sense of what is right and wrong. For example that murder, stealing and lying are wrong.
No matter where you go on the planet you will find that the vast majority of people believe in the basic premise of the 10 commandments. As in: lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, and murder are wrong (just to name a few). No matter what background they had, or how old they are.
Take a small child for example, say 2 or 3 years old. I have seen this many times over and anybody with kids can attest to this:
Place something in the same room with the child. Something the child really wants…say cookies or something. Tell them they can’t have it and leave the room. Guaranteed most kids that small are going to take it anyway. That scenario happened with my Goddaughter by the way
I left the room for like 2 seconds and came back and she had crumbs all over her. I asked her if she ate one and she said no!
Cutest thing, I couldn’t help but laugh, because the evidence was all over her mouth, and the floor.
You don’t have to teach a child how to lie, or steel. They can figure that out all on their own. You have to teach a child NOT to lie or steal. You can say she was acting on instinct, but how did she know to lie about it? Nobody I know teaches their child how to lie. She was too small to understand what a “lie” was, because that prompted her mom trying to explain to her how what she did was wrong and why. She lied because she just ‘knew’ what she did was wrong and that she was going to get in trouble for it.
Her mom asked her why she took it and she responded with the typical “I don’t know”. She didn’t lie because of example, and she didn’t lie out of reaction because nobody else was in the room at the time of said cookie incident . She lied because she wanted to get away with something.
I think God has instilled in us from birth a basic concept of right and wrong.
I think that the communist leaders simply don't want to acknowledge that a higher power could exist beside themselves. Unlike Christian/Western leaders, who try to acknowledge their weaknesses, shortcomings and human frailities.
I've always admired communism's way of sharing scarce resources, but their practice of a totalitarian lifestyle without freedoms of expression (art, music, literature, speech) and religion (personal philosphy) is grossly unjust - a.k.a. immoral.
There's some Muslim countries that seem to treat women unjustly, without allowing education or the freedom to be like normal humans too walk around freely.
Some parts of the world seem to be on a whole different timeline than ours, much like when the American Indians first met the Europeans.
Not that our religion is better, but it does seem to be more just.
How many wives should a man have and does it matter?
This is a question that religions might disagree on. But are there ramifications for societies that practice polygamy, and can those be considered to be divine consequences?
That's a valid question, isn't it?
It may not matter to a wolf, but as far as human morality, are there no limits?
Is consent by all of the parties good enough, or is there something inherently immoral about it?
This should be a cutting edge question for atheists.
The same can be asked about incest.
Or sodomy.
Or beastiality.
Should the world just be free of any religious morality?
If atheists were able to decide, which world would they choose, one with conventional boundaries or one without? And how would those boundaries be justified to people, with brute force and without reason?
To me, it seems that pure atheism would advocate a type of moral anarchy.
Dangit, I just had a good response to all of this and I just deleted it!
Here we go again:
It seems to me that perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying about communism, morals, and human perceptions.
As far as communist leaders go, I'm not sure if they fear admitting a higher power or not. I wasn't referring to the leaders as much as I was the followers. Because the followers are given no other choice, they see the "leader" as their God. That's why I think Communism is almost more of a religion than a political practice. The leader has substituted God for himself.
As far as morals and human perceptions go, I think it's fair to say that you implied that if no one had ever believed in God we would have lawlessness and recklesness. Is that a fair statement to make? My response to that is that we, as humans, with those big huge brains of ours can understand the concept of when we hurt someone. We see other people's reactions. We see what it's like to make someone cry, feel pain, or embarassed. We see others do it and we don't like it because we don't want it to happen to us. I think that's a pretty easy concept to follow. So why wouldn't we outlaw murder? Why wouldn't we outlaw stealing? We all realize these things as things that hurt others. We all get that. It's not because the bible has told us that, it's just easy for us, with our big huge brains, to grasp that concept. Keep in mind, this is the same brain that put men on the moon, built the pyramids, and unlocked so many mysteries of the universe, and you think that we couldn't conceive the notion of right and wrong? I beg to differ.
I agree with this. I think that God instilled basic morals within humans, Christian or non. Yet some Christians make it sound as if someone who doesn't believe in Christ is completely devoid of any morals...but like June said, wouldn't the world have devolved into complete chaos thousands of years ago if this were the case? We must as Christians realize that non-Christians DO have morals, and that God has given us ALL, believers and non, an internal moral compass. I believe that as a Christian you are MORE LIKELY to follow this compass, but not necessarily, and vise-versa for the non-Christian.
If you are a believer who disagrees with me, then what are your reasons for doing so? Do you find that anyone who is "unsaved" is therefore morally corrupt? Why?
I have known too many non-Christians who were better people and more Christ-like than some Christians for this belief to be true.
I agree! It's silly for anyone to think that non-Christians have no morals or concept of right from wrong. Only our concept of God and Christ are different. Atheists were conditioned with the basic morals from God, just as Christians were. God instilled these morals (as well as basic instincts for survival) in ALL of us, not just the ones that chose His path. However, there are still people out there that have buried those morals and/or have mental illnesses or a bad childhood etc that seem to have LOST those morals.
I just don't believe that God was/is selective when it comes to morals. Look at how the world would be right now if NON-believers had NO MORALS
Dogs do not have morals - it's all survival to them.
Dogs do not have morals. For dogs it all boils down to safe or un-safe and survival. Dogs do not "know" when they have been "bad" that guilty look you get from Fido when you get home and there is a present left on the rug is the look of a dog who has been conditioned to go potty inside when the human is absent and to be wary when the human comes home, because the human coming home represents a possible punishment, verbal or otherwise. Classical conditioning at it's finest. Humans coming home predict possible punishment.
This is also true of dogs that "bite out of nowhere". This is a false statement uttered by many people. Dogs give great protracted warning signs. Unfortunately most humans cannot recognize the warning signs. Weather through ill advised "training" or some other patchwork of street or book advice, the owner has either made the situation worse by punishing out the warning signs or has heightened the unwanted behavior and now has a dog who is worse at the unwanted behavior.
Consequence is what drives behavior in both humans and dogs. Dogs are afforded the black and white version of intellect. They are lucky to be free of the burdens of an intellect as complicated as the humans capacity to learn, rationalize and problem solve. Dogs are simple, we humans have made them complicated in our lack of understanding and the refusal of some to look at dogs not as little humans but as dogs.
As for dominance, it is contextual. One dog may be dominant over another dog over say a bone, yet that same dog will not be dominant over that dog over say a ball. It is always switching due to the context that the dogs are in. Also we are not dogs, and the dogs know this, we are already the dominant species. It is about leverage not dominance in the human dog relationship. We cannot be any more dominant over dogs than we already are. As it stands anyone can just give their dog away or have it put to death, that is pretty darn dominant.
With this lack of morals that dogs come with however is an innocent creature that has willingly made a bond with us. Humans represent food, shelter and companionship. Dogs have an intrinsically kind nature. When dogs go "bad" it is due to some form of human neglect either overt or unknowing.
Unfortunately dogs suffer from the misfortune of far too many arm chair experts, who are not taking a scientific approach to dog behavior.
If you are someone who believes dogs possess morals, then be afraid very afraid, because if dogs know right from wrong we are in for a serious wake up call when they start voting and publishing their side of the story.
For dogs it all boils down to safe or un-safe and survival.
Well now, this seems to be a good foundation for a moral code.
Survival & safety is good, and un-safe is bad or evil. All we need now is empathy (the ability to sympathise with others) and we are all set to go.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alpha males ... or just "leaders"?
All we need now is empathy (the ability to sympathise with others) and we are all set to go.
