My comment: I find the psychopath label insulting and would want to see the measure. I certainly could be a psychopath if I am expected to love family that hates my sexuality because of their beliefs, or pressures me to marry, or delays my sexual activities to promote a sexist agenda. How do you measure incredulity - with a psychopath yardstick? I certainly find the cocooning cottonwool white-dove fluffy cloud factory not my definition of deep-conscious emotion either. I would say that 70% LGBTI homeless teens says it all, that they were expelled from their families heartlessly. I would say that women forced to carry the children to term of careless men and rapists were forced to do so heartlessly. And so much more. Atheists don't stone women for adultery, don't prevent them from driving, don't work in all-male enclaves while turning a blind eye to the humanity of women and children. Religious people think atheists are amoral because morality comes from (god). That's what lies behind this 'science'.
I don't think 'natural' is good. There are many things that we apply (some almost arbitrary) (some ignorant and backward ideas of natural and not-natural agenda-propagating) rules of morality. I think 'natural' is a political rhetoric, profoundly abused. 'Diversity' is the only defensible rhetoric for 'thinking' beings. We are not, of course, the only creatures that do thinking, but we are the only creatures with the power to oppress others and other creatures whose languages we don't understand. Us (badly) thinking creatures, slowly, ponderously gathering the evidence of our badness (I see no reason for your (god's) patience with us), have the ability to decide to be better than (the fashionable) 'natural' of the day. It is our responsibility to transcend our vileness. Just that. That one task. Our thinkingness I believe is for that. A world (constructed by god) to demonstrate this point. And we will find every rhetor...
Comments