Well that is a term that has been actually used. Try google w/it, you'll find a few texts about religion and genetics, and how they seem to be linked together.
Literally atheism means not being a theist, and all of us are that. I don't expect you to have a belief in e.g. Zeus, Morrigan or Seth. This would make you an atheist regarding these gods.
Then again, strong and weak atheism are defined differently. Strong atheism says that there is no god (or even, not one god). Weak atheist just does not believe in god. There is a difference, as not believing in god is different than being sure that god does not exist. These, both, are forms of atheism.
Agnosticism is different, it's actually being unsure if you believe in a god or not. A weak atheist does not believe in god, and a strong atheist believes that god does not exist.
It shouldn't be that confusing, really. Many ppl who think they are agnostics are actually weak atheists. And all of us are atheist regarding some deities.
Um... Actually 'the basic compass' is very much the same over the all cultural boundaries. This has been studied. [1] And that points strongly towards genetics, not god, as these ppl are atheists, theists, buddhists, agnostics, polytheists... - and they all have the same hardware programming.
We all have the same genetic basic morality hardware package apart from the 2-3 % of population who are sociopaths. Culture adds on top of that.
[1] Find references in Richard Dawkins's: `The god delusion'
That's called "God of the holes". God explains what one doesn't understand. That's - of course - redicilous. On the other hand, science is making the holes less every day. Dawkins says that it wasn't really easy to defend atheism before Charles Darwin, but after him it was quite possible to do so. Darwin moved one of the most significant holes w/the theory of evolution.
Dunno if that's true. However it points out that value of explaining "Why god almost certainly doesn't exist" [1] to your kids.
[1]
See:
Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion
That is an interesting POV, because the tendency for ppl to Demand fairness seems inborn. It goes beyond all rationality, ppl just cannot accept that the world is as (unfair as) it is. This might have something to do w/being a group animal, the tendency to force fairness thru group mechanics must have been something our ancestors must've needed.
You know... It seems like many of the most religious ppl from Europe actually migrated to the U.S. when it was being formed. This might have an effect on nature and nurture, both.
Actually, the basis of our morality comes from how apes acts as social beings. So the fear of chaos is just uneducated. Start being an arse, and you will very quickly find yourself w/o any friends or allies. It doens't take god, it just takes a society of apes to enforce this.
Don't take my word for it ? Then try:
Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals by Frans B. M. de Waal
It was well pointed out how killing became more efficient in more recent wars. This does actually suggest that killing for humans has to be conditioned to be effective. I cannot give you the actual figures, because I don't have the book here.
And I never said that becoming more efficient a killer makes one a more willing one. You will notice this if you read my original posting.
That's a little harsh in the least. If you do not accept his conclusions, there is surely value in some of the things he speaks of like operant conditioning and how it without a doubt works, and things like psychological distance of killing. So please do not discredit all, when you disagree w/some.
I got no reference on this, but I think that I've heard somewhere that FPS and similar games are actually used in training soldiers. First comes to mind the game... was it called U.S. Army that was made by the army ?
Actually, how the vets are treated by the public is one of the factors in coping w/what one has done, but killing ppl does scar a person. The shorter the psychological distance, the more so. And it gets harder as well as the psychological distance gets shorter. This is why you have these games like machine-rifle systems in helicopters these days - killing is just like playing a game.
While I do somewhat sympathize w/the writer of the text, I think it's important to point out that some soldiers and security experts actually do think that playing FPS - type games does do one thing for you, which is called `operant conditioning'. That is the exact method that the armies have used to get the soldier to shoot at each other. Most untrained ppl actually DO NOT shoot at each other in the battle-field. I'm not going to elaborate on this for very long, but rather ask you to get the book that Grossmaan wrote - it's called `On Killing'.
The general idea is that a human ape actually is more or less genetically programmed not to kill its species. Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger sounds easy enough, but most untrained ppl will miss at point-blank range or will just be unable to shoot at another person. The "fix" the armies came up w/was programming shooting at ppl-shaped targets. It's like in boxing, one does eventually get the punches and the slips programmed into the brain, and will react w/o a second thought. So, what one does to train soldiers to shoot at human shaped figures is to make them do that. Repeat, repeat, repeat shooting at a human-shaped silhoutte, and you end up w/soldiers that are programmed/conditioned to shoot at human-shaped figures in the battle-field. This works very, very well.
However, as it is psyhologically very damaging to kill one's own species, this type of training makes the psychological costs of going to war even more severe. The ppl who would normally be unable to kill will kill out of conditioned reactions and will many tymes be emotionally crippled for life for the things they have done.
Now what does this have to do w/FPS ? Well, you repeat, repeat, repeat shooting at human-shaped figures. You get the conditioning that is used for soldiers. Now I am not saying that this will make you necessarily more violent, but this will for sure make a person having done this much more efficient in killing others if this person happens to lose it and go on a rampage.
So, the truth of the matter to me appears to be that the games actually do help in making a shooting a lot more lethal in ways of enabling the shooter to actually shoot at ppl proper and keep on hitting the target w/ease because of having conditioned the appropriate responses out of hir system.
Make of it what you will, this is what some of the experts say.
Slashdot Mirror
Well that is a term that has been actually used. Try google w/it, you'll find a few texts about religion and genetics, and how they seem to be linked together.
Well, that is sad, as the design argument is very unscientific. This makes Flew - if nothing else - a questionable scientist.
Literally atheism means not being a theist, and all of us are that. I don't expect you to have a belief in e.g. Zeus, Morrigan or Seth. This would make you an atheist regarding these gods. Then again, strong and weak atheism are defined differently. Strong atheism says that there is no god (or even, not one god). Weak atheist just does not believe in god. There is a difference, as not believing in god is different than being sure that god does not exist. These, both, are forms of atheism. Agnosticism is different, it's actually being unsure if you believe in a god or not. A weak atheist does not believe in god, and a strong atheist believes that god does not exist. It shouldn't be that confusing, really. Many ppl who think they are agnostics are actually weak atheists. And all of us are atheist regarding some deities.
...before his move to theism ? Can I laugh now ? ;)
Actually... The thing you are referring to - quite correctly - is actually a product of nurture. As you're likely to know all too well. :)
Um... Actually 'the basic compass' is very much the same over the all cultural boundaries. This has been studied. [1] And that points strongly towards genetics, not god, as these ppl are atheists, theists, buddhists, agnostics, polytheists... - and they all have the same hardware programming.
We all have the same genetic basic morality hardware package apart from the 2-3 % of population who are sociopaths. Culture adds on top of that.
[1]
Find references in Richard Dawkins's: `The god delusion'
That's called "God of the holes". God explains what one doesn't understand. That's - of course - redicilous. On the other hand, science is making the holes less every day. Dawkins says that it wasn't really easy to defend atheism before Charles Darwin, but after him it was quite possible to do so. Darwin moved one of the most significant holes w/the theory of evolution.
Dunno if that's true. However it points out that value of explaining "Why god almost certainly doesn't exist" [1] to your kids. [1] See: Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion
That is an interesting POV, because the tendency for ppl to Demand fairness seems inborn. It goes beyond all rationality, ppl just cannot accept that the world is as (unfair as) it is. This might have something to do w/being a group animal, the tendency to force fairness thru group mechanics must have been something our ancestors must've needed.
You know... It seems like many of the most religious ppl from Europe actually migrated to the U.S. when it was being formed. This might have an effect on nature and nurture, both.
if they had a meeting to come up w/this study... Maybe they could've reached another conclusion individually... ;)
mplayer http://fjord.nationalgeographic.com/news/070222-ch imp-video.asf
Thanks. :)
Or, if you think that the dir exists:
...which never gets complete, because you use tab to fill in the dir names.
cd tmp/a/b/c
Noticing this, then type:
mkdir -p tmp/a/b/c
then use command-line history and cut/paste to get there (esp. if the dir is long):
up arrow, ctrl+w, ctrl+c, ctrl+y, ctrl+a
type
cd and one space, then press enter.
This might seem tedious, but when it's in your spine, it's good.
> Set up your shell prompt to look like this user@host /path$
And colour-code it. I have different colours for different hosts so that I won't fek up.
Actually, the basis of our morality comes from how apes acts as social beings. So the fear of chaos is just uneducated. Start being an arse, and you will very quickly find yourself w/o any friends or allies. It doens't take god, it just takes a society of apes to enforce this.
Don't take my word for it ? Then try:
Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals
by Frans B. M. de Waal
They Have To keep that a secret... ;)
1. about:config
1 6. Sam things? topic=122226.msg780638#msg780638
1.1 browser.tabs.closeButtons = 3
1.2 browser.backspace_action = 0
2 Getting alt+[pse...] working as in 1.X series
Short answer: Use alt+shift+[pse...]
Long answer:
This cannot be done ATM, as even the workaround only makes alt+s work, not alt+p, for example.
For the curious, you can try setting: ui.key.contentAccess = 4. But it will only get you there
half way. More information: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3497
said over here: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php
It was well pointed out how killing became more efficient in more recent wars. This does actually suggest that killing for humans has to be conditioned to be effective. I cannot give you the actual figures, because I don't have the book here.
And I never said that becoming more efficient a killer makes one a more willing one. You will notice this if you read my original posting.
That's a little harsh in the least. If you do not accept his conclusions, there is surely value in some of the things he speaks of like operant conditioning and how it without a doubt works, and things like psychological distance of killing. So please do not discredit all, when you disagree w/some.
I got no reference on this, but I think that I've heard somewhere that FPS and similar games are actually used in training soldiers. First comes to mind the game... was it called U.S. Army that was made by the army ?
Actually, how the vets are treated by the public is one of the factors in coping w/what one has done, but killing ppl does scar a person. The shorter the psychological distance, the more so. And it gets harder as well as the psychological distance gets shorter. This is why you have these games like machine-rifle systems in helicopters these days - killing is just like playing a game.
While I do somewhat sympathize w/the writer of the text, I think it's important to point out that some soldiers and security experts actually do think that playing FPS - type games does do one thing for you, which is called `operant conditioning'. That is the exact method that the armies have used to get the soldier to shoot at each other. Most untrained ppl actually DO NOT shoot at each other in the battle-field. I'm not going to elaborate on this for very long, but rather ask you to get the book that Grossmaan wrote - it's called `On Killing'.
The general idea is that a human ape actually is more or less genetically programmed not to kill its species. Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger sounds easy enough, but most untrained ppl will miss at point-blank range or will just be unable to shoot at another person. The "fix" the armies came up w/was programming shooting at ppl-shaped targets. It's like in boxing, one does eventually get the punches and the slips programmed into the brain, and will react w/o a second thought. So, what one does to train soldiers to shoot at human shaped figures is to make them do that. Repeat, repeat, repeat shooting at a human-shaped silhoutte, and you end up w/soldiers that are programmed/conditioned to shoot at human-shaped figures in the battle-field. This works very, very well.
However, as it is psyhologically very damaging to kill one's own species, this type of training makes the psychological costs of going to war even more severe. The ppl who would normally be unable to kill will kill out of conditioned reactions and will many tymes be emotionally crippled for life for the things they have done.
Now what does this have to do w/FPS ? Well, you repeat, repeat, repeat shooting at human-shaped figures. You get the conditioning that is used for soldiers. Now I am not saying that this will make you necessarily more violent, but this will for sure make a person having done this much more efficient in killing others if this person happens to lose it and go on a rampage.
So, the truth of the matter to me appears to be that the games actually do help in making a shooting a lot more lethal in ways of enabling the shooter to actually shoot at ppl proper and keep on hitting the target w/ease because of having conditioned the appropriate responses out of hir system.
Make of it what you will, this is what some of the experts say.