this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
899 points (98.5% liked)

Atheist Memes

6072 readers
308 users here now

About

A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.

Rules

  1. No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.

  2. No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.

  3. No bigotry.

  4. Attack ideas not people.

  5. Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.

  6. No False Reporting

  7. NSFW posts must be marked as such.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

!exchristian@lemmy.one

!exmormon@lemmy.world

!exmuslim@lemmy.world

Other Similar Communities

!religiouscringe@midwest.social

!priest_arrested@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.world

!atheism@lemmy.ml

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 24 points 4 days ago (2 children)

There was just a case where a woman gave birth to a baby in the woods, left it there and left for a vacation. If it weren't for the family dog desperately trying to save the baby and getting noticed by a stranger, nobody would have ever known as even the rest of the family was defensive of the woman.

This shows morality is not only not an exclusively trait but not even an exclusively human trait.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

I am not sure that I agree that the dog's behavior necessarily demonstrates "morality." You might be anthropomorphizing a bit. I am not a biologist or anything, so I could be way off base... But is it not possible that the dog was acting on instincts to protect newborn offspring? Similar to when animals "adopt" babies from other species as their own?

Morality implies that the dog did a thing because it's "the right thing to do," when in reality, it might have just been a self-preservation instinct kicking in. Dog sees newborn that's clearly the offspring of the being that takes care of it, dog tries to preserve that newborn's life in order to keep the gravy train going.

Just my (again, non-expert) thoughts.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You can remove the argument from morality safely from your answer just by stating the dog acted upon instinct, based off the notion dogs are pack animals, that have a closely knit symbiotic relatioship with human, which can be used to in favour of the dog finding a newborn activated the instinct of preserving their pack.

The way you approached the subject can be easily side tracked through arguing you are atributting self interest to the animals actions, as in, it keeps the newborn alive, thus, their own preservation is assured.

If acting on true self interest, the dog should have allowed the newborn to die.

Side note: who discards a newborn in such calous way? How unbalanced is the person?

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If acting on true self interest, the dog should have allowed the newborn to die.

That's not necessarily true. No more human offspring means no more symbiotic relationship.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No offspring, closer symbiotic relationship, with more resources available.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Maybe.... We're probably overthinking it and it's just a "protect baby" instinct.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 days ago

And that is a very possible scenario.

[–] endeavor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 days ago

Zealots judging by the news coming out of america do not care about such trivial details as "facts", "medical science" and "behavioral science". It is unnecessary for them to take that into consideration.

[–] Kiuyn@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago

Do you have source?