Evolution by Natural Selection ; Darwin was right. The bible is a lie.

redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Evolution by Natural Selection ; Darwin was right. The bible is a lie.

This may be one of the most riveting, and highly improbable pieces of video footage, you will ever see, that demonstrates how natural selection works, and how likely 'morals' developed entirely 'naturally'.

I assure you that need to watch right to the end, or you'll miss the most highly improbable outcome (miracle??). There is virtually no doubt that a god, had nothing to do with any of this.

It is not in a god's nature.

It is in ours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

 

Credit to awesome atheist AronRa, for presenting this video, at a lecture of his, on "The Evolution of Morality'.

You can watch the 8 part series here, where he demonstrates some incredible scientific findings on the social, and sexual behaviours of different animals, and the incredible similarities in warfare behaviour we share with chimpanzees.

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa?blend=2&ob=1#p/c/85E0FA9563D34402/0/OQUxmJR9a5Y

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
it takes Darwin to realize

it takes Darwin to realize that?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Next week, a guy is going to

Next week, a guy is going to have a little speech about the implications of social darwinism, or darwinism in medicine, during religion class.

Now what I am going to do is oppose him in every possible way. But I don't really know exactly what I should say.
I know that fascism isn't based on evolution, because of biodiversity.
I could say that we surpassed evolution, because we are with 7 billion, and we help the weak.
Then, of course, I should say that people have equal rights, independent of 'social darwinism'.

But that's about it.

Edit:

I meant to ask if any of you guys have some things to add. Since, you know, you guys debate all day long, and it's really thing for this forum.

I'm also going to search the site; maybe the topic has been made before Smiling


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:it takes Darwin

Kapkao wrote:

it takes Darwin to realize that?

No.

But for some people, it takes more than a theory to demonstrate they're wrong...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
That demonstrates that

That demonstrates that cooperation is an advantage for survival of species that live in groups, that some form of 'group selection' clearly works, that 'Darwinism' is not purely about individual competition and selection

 

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:That

BobSpence1 wrote:

That demonstrates that cooperation is an advantage for survival of species that live in groups, that some form of 'group selection' clearly works, that 'Darwinism' is not purely about individual competition and selection

Obviously, we cannot interview the animals in question, but, you can clearly see that although the 2 adults got away safely, they were not content to just get away with their lives, and that somehow the herd was inspired, to comeback and attack the lions.

Clearly, they felt that it was 'wrong' for the young one to become prey to them, and that it was 'right' for them to go back, even in the face of great danger.

 

I thought it was a brilliant illustration.

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:This may

redneF wrote:

This may be one of the most riveting, and highly improbable pieces of video footage, you will ever see, that demonstrates how natural selection works, and how likely 'morals' developed entirely 'naturally'.

I assure you that need to watch right to the end, or you'll miss the most highly improbable outcome (miracle??). There is virtually no doubt that a god, had nothing to do with any of this.

It is not in a god's nature.

It is in ours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

 

Credit to awesome atheist AronRa, for presenting this video, at a lecture of his, on "The Evolution of Morality'.

You can watch the 8 part series here, where he demonstrates some incredible scientific findings on the social, and sexual behaviours of different animals, and the incredible similarities in warfare behaviour we share with chimpanzees.

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa?blend=2&ob=1#p/c/85E0FA9563D34402/0/OQUxmJR9a5Y

 

 

LOL...Christnut psychos will find some INSANE way to justify their MYTHICAL god.  They'll say Jeebus kick started the whole thing eventhough that's NOT what creationism says and the bible mentions NOTHING about any of the branches of science!!

But Christianity continues to lose influence and Christians have more doubt than ever before in the west! It'll be marginalized into a Jim Jones type cult eventually.

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
JesusNEVERexisted wrote:But

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

But Christianity continues to lose influence and Christians have more doubt than ever before in the west! It'll be marginalized into a Jim Jones type cult eventually.

I think they're stupid enough, to think that just because the other hundreds of factions of Judeo Christians also believe in the same messiah, that they get a false sense of 'security' that they're in the 'majority'.

They're actually 'rivals'.

Not on the same team at all.

And yes, it makes the whole Jeebus concept totally flaky.

 

They already are a 'subculture'. They just don't know it.

I don't 'buy' all the stats of the numbers of Christians in America. I bet more than half just go throught the motions of saying they are.

But, they're actions say otherwise.

So, it's moot to call themselves anything but 'individual thinkers'.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:BobSpence1

redneF wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

That demonstrates that cooperation is an advantage for survival of species that live in groups, that some form of 'group selection' clearly works, that 'Darwinism' is not purely about individual competition and selection

Obviously, we cannot interview the animals in question, but, you can clearly see that although the 2 adults got away safely, they were not content to just get away with their lives, and that somehow the herd was inspired, to comeback and attack the lions.

Clearly, they felt that it was 'wrong' for the young one to become prey to them, and that it was 'right' for them to go back, even in the face of great danger.

I thought it was a brilliant illustration.

The ability of the original buffalo to communicate the situation in some sense to the rest of the herd, and trigger that response, is to me, the most impressive thing. Just what the 'thought processes' involved may have been, at what level, is indeed very much fascinating to contemplate.

No matter how you judge the level of 'conscious' vs. instinctive reaction involved here, it should give us all pause as to just how much our own moral decisions are a matter of instinctive reaction or conscious choice.

Yet another example of how there is not this absolute distinction between humans as conscious and moral 'agents', and the rest of the natural world as purely acting from 'instinct'.

If such examples from the non-human world could be argued away as mere instinct, then so can much of our own behaviour.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
 Of course it's moot,

 Of course it's moot, christianity in america is merely word of mouth, not by action. Yes there are many that claim to be followers of christ, hell from my experience alone in the US I can tell you their are alot of so call christians that are full of shit. Many gang members that claim to believe in jesus and in god but are willing to kill you for a dime. Sell drugs, deal in prostitution, they just say it but fuck they aren't followers of any religions except money and power. Many regular folks I suspect the same, they don't go to church, many couldn't even tell you why sodom and gomorrah was destroyed, or who went to the tomb of jesus to see him (of course it all depends on which gospel your using). 

No many christians in the US are chrisitans by the society they live in, they are not church going, followers of the bible christians, they just claim they are.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:redneF

BobSpence1 wrote:

redneF wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

That demonstrates that cooperation is an advantage for survival of species that live in groups, that some form of 'group selection' clearly works, that 'Darwinism' is not purely about individual competition and selection

Obviously, we cannot interview the animals in question, but, you can clearly see that although the 2 adults got away safely, they were not content to just get away with their lives, and that somehow the herd was inspired, to comeback and attack the lions.

Clearly, they felt that it was 'wrong' for the young one to become prey to them, and that it was 'right' for them to go back, even in the face of great danger.

I thought it was a brilliant illustration.

The ability of the original buffalo to communicate the situation in some sense to the rest of the herd, and trigger that response, is to me, the most impressive thing. Just what the 'thought processes' involved may have been, at what level, is indeed very much fascinating to contemplate.

No matter how you judge the level of 'conscious' vs. instinctive reaction involved here, it should give us all pause as to just how much our own moral decisions are a matter of instinctive reaction or conscious choice.

Yet another example of how there is not this absolute distinction between humans as conscious and moral 'agents', and the rest of the natural world as purely acting from 'instinct'.

If such examples from the non-human world could be argued away as mere instinct, then so can much of our own behaviour.

 

I don't think there is any difference, we're (humans) just a more complex system and we've applied labels to that complexity in an attempt to make functional generalizations.  Being able to think about thinking doesn't mean we're any less tied to our instincts than a buffalo, it just means our minds have created this elaborate feedback loop that 'tricks' itself into thinking it has a choice about how it acts.

 

I agree, it would be fascinating to understand exactly how the herd came to the conclusion to fight back.  To get inside their heads, as it were.

 

The whole thing is strange and counter-intuitive and possibly very complex.  Hhow did I word this..."An atom bumping into another atom eventually translates into 1.19 x 10^57 atoms in an isolated orb of energetic particals ejecting radiation over vast distances that is then taken in by another group of atoms on a larger substrate that turns the energy into a self replicating engine capable of endless adaptation. Or, sunshine makes the trees grow.


People seem fine with that level of complexity being natural, and it is all based on 'simple' chemistry. I find it no more absurd to think the mind is also goverened by the same processes."

 

Consciousness is fascinating.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:redneF

BobSpence1 wrote:

redneF wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

That demonstrates that cooperation is an advantage for survival of species that live in groups, that some form of 'group selection' clearly works, that 'Darwinism' is not purely about individual competition and selection

Obviously, we cannot interview the animals in question, but, you can clearly see that although the 2 adults got away safely, they were not content to just get away with their lives, and that somehow the herd was inspired, to comeback and attack the lions.

Clearly, they felt that it was 'wrong' for the young one to become prey to them, and that it was 'right' for them to go back, even in the face of great danger.

I thought it was a brilliant illustration.

The ability of the original buffalo to communicate the situation in some sense to the rest of the herd, and trigger that response, is to me, the most impressive thing. Just what the 'thought processes' involved may have been, at what level, is indeed very much fascinating to contemplate.

No matter how you judge the level of 'conscious' vs. instinctive reaction involved here, it should give us all pause as to just how much our own moral decisions are a matter of instinctive reaction or conscious choice.

It reminds me of a time I got woken up from a dead sleep, one summer night, about a dozen years ago, to the terrible sounds of what I thought was an infant crying out in torment and suffering  outside, in the woods beside our house.

I remember the instantaneous instinct that gave me the biggest burst of adrenaline I'd ever felt in my life. As I ran through the kitchen I pulled out the largest carving knife out of the wood block, and out the front door around the side of the house to find out what was going on.

I was ready for anything. I didn't know if it was a child getting mauled by a dog, or a rapist, or a bear. But, something was going to die.

It turned out to be 3 raccoons up in a tree. Two of them had ganged up on one, and were fighting it. They were all exhausted, and panting heavily. The sole raccoon was frightened, hurt and whimpering. The sounds of it whimpering sounded exactly like an infant. It almost sounded as if it was a baby mumbling, like it was trying to communicate.

It was like a nightmare. I couldn't get the sounds I heard that night, out of my head, for days.

 

If you watch the AronRa lecture, he talks about the distinct differences between warm blooded animals, and cold blooded animals, in terms of social behaviour. It's really interesting...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Answer to RedBull

Hi RedNef,

Wow, comedy hour or happy hour? Close enough?

Look, I've discussed this problem philospohically on many occasions and yet you don't learn. If you were my student I would thrown the chalk board right at you.

Bob Spencer1 had this problem to. You have to qualify and clarify what type of "KNOWING" you will pursue in first before you even talk about evolution.

But there is so much confusion regarding epistemology and so many categorical fallacies, it's almost like this is one of those dillusions that God sent to the reprobate (II Thess 2:9).

Are you approaching this empirically? This is NOT via the rules of logic, but rather via ostensive observation. Or are you using Reason capital R where Logic and Reason are God like the Deists? Or you are arguing intuitively via your feelings?

As I bring this up, I know, I just know that all will mix up the categories, get confused, and be dumbfounded. But you must keep a given method of epiesemology in it's field lest you become absurd like my friend Bob Spence did regarding empiricism and logic.

Justify your method of the know, then we can talk about Darwin. If this isn't done, you are peeing in the wind and thus peeing on yourself.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hi Jean, it seems you

Hi Jean, it seems you haven't learned anything from our previous discussions.

Without logical analysis of the results of empirical investigation, applied iteratively, ie make more observations and/or experiments suggested by the results of that analysis, we do not have even moderately justifiable knowledge, apart from (incomplete) knowledge of the state of our own mind.

You have made several clear logical fallacies in recent responses, which alone would disqualify you from being taken seriously, independent of the substance of your claims.

And when you also claim to base your 'knowledge' on scripture, you leave yourself with no sound base for your claims.

Since you appear to be making no substantially new claims, and are not prepared or able to engage in real discussion of our respective positions, beyond mere repetition of your claims, I really have little interest in engaging you beyond this post.

You have nothing.

Most disrespectfully,

Bob S.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi RedNef,

Wow, comedy hour or happy hour? Close enough?

Look, I've discussed this problem philospohically on many occasions and yet you don't learn. If you were my student I would thrown the chalk board right at you.

Bob Spencer1 had this problem to. You have to qualify and clarify what type of "KNOWING" you will pursue in first before you even talk about evolution.

But there is so much confusion regarding epistemology and so many categorical fallacies, it's almost like this is one of those dillusions that God sent to the reprobate (II Thess 2:9).

Are you approaching this empirically? This is NOT via the rules of logic, but rather via ostensive observation. Or are you using Reason capital R where Logic and Reason are God like the Deists? Or you are arguing intuitively via your feelings?

As I bring this up, I know, I just know that all will mix up the categories, get confused, and be dumbfounded. But you must keep a given method of epiesemology in it's field lest you become absurd like my friend Bob Spence did regarding empiricism and logic.

Justify your method of the know, then we can talk about Darwin. If this isn't done, you are peeing in the wind and thus peeing on yourself.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You're an idiot Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:This may

redneF wrote:

This may be one of the most riveting, and highly improbable pieces of video footage, you will ever see, that demonstrates how natural selection works, and how likely 'morals' developed entirely 'naturally'.

I assure you that need to watch right to the end, or you'll miss the most highly improbable outcome (miracle??). There is virtually no doubt that a god, had nothing to do with any of this.

It is not in a god's nature.

It is in ours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

 

Credit to awesome atheist AronRa, for presenting this video, at a lecture of his, on "The Evolution of Morality'.

You can watch the 8 part series here, where he demonstrates some incredible scientific findings on the social, and sexual behaviours of different animals, and the incredible similarities in warfare behaviour we share with chimpanzees.

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa?blend=2&ob=1#p/c/85E0FA9563D34402/0/OQUxmJR9a5Y

 

That's a very powerful video, I'm not sure how many times I've heard the 'natural selection = selfishness' idiocy from theists.  Also, very thought provoking as Bob pointed out.  Ironically, I remember this exact example being thrown in by a theist not that long ago (may have been Mr. M ), namely that if someone is drowning, morality other than god-given, would dictate that you don't risk your life to save theirs.

Good post, thank you for sharing.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

Hey KTULA, why'd you call Bob an Idiot. He seems like a nice guy.

Bob, just becaues you are stumped and have no answer, doesn't mean that your ad hominems will make it easier for you. You can walk away from your linguistic and rational holes. When it comes to this subject, you are wholy.

Again, the interpretation of empirical data is NON EMPIRICAL. The ability to contrast, cause and effect, etc. The interpretation part is LOGICAL not empirical.

I know that's what they do, but the do this via a categorical fallacy outside of rationality.

lol.

So again, unless one can provide a logical justification of their method of knowing when it comes to evolution, they cannot argue for or against evolutions since they are no more intelligenct then my uncle's monkey on a stick.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yeah

 

 

Good video - seen it a few times and still found it intriguing then tho' thought the buffs were a bit gutless. They should have got together ten of their biggest guys and just waded in. Humans share a lot of their core stuff with other animals - no doubt.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello,Hey

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

Hey KTULA, why'd you call Bob an Idiot. He seems like a nice guy.

Bob, just becaues you are stumped and have no answer, doesn't mean that your ad hominems will make it easier for you. You can walk away from your linguistic and rational holes. When it comes to this subject, you are wholy.

Again, the interpretation of empirical data is NON EMPIRICAL. The ability to contrast, cause and effect, etc. The interpretation part is LOGICAL not empirical.

I know that's what they do, but the do this via a categorical fallacy outside of rationality.

lol.

So again, unless one can provide a logical justification of their method of knowing when it comes to evolution, they cannot argue for or against evolutions since they are no more intelligenct then my uncle's monkey on a stick.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You are still stuck on that false dilemma, that you cannot analyse empirical data with the help of non-empirical tools (logic and math).

I did not claim that the analysis is itself empirical, it certainly does not need to be. The interpretation is to an extent empirical, in that it is informed by how fruitful and useful previous approaches to interpreting related data have been.

Logic without empirical data can tell us nothing about reality. Empirical data without logical and mathematical analysis does actually tell us something, but little beyond the raw information. 

People build houses with hammers and other tools. Tools which cannot of themselves serve as shelter. We also apply conceptual ideals to designing a house, even though such ideas are in a different category to a physical structure.

You make a category error, failing to distinguish conceptual and analytic tools from the processes by which we gather data to apply those tools to.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 BobSpence1 wrote:The

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
The ability of the original buffalo to communicate the situation in some sense to the rest of the herd, and trigger that response, is to me, the most impressive thing. Just what the 'thought processes' involved may have been, at what level, is indeed very much fascinating to contemplate.

 

No matter how you judge the level of 'conscious' vs. instinctive reaction involved here, it should give us all pause as to just how much our own moral decisions are a matter of instinctive reaction or conscious choice.

 

Yet another example of how there is not this absolute distinction between humans as conscious and moral 'agents', and the rest of the natural world as purely acting from 'instinct'.

 

If such examples from the non-human world could be argued away as mere instinct, then so can much of our own behaviour.

 

Yah, I have always found animal behavior to be quite interesting.

 

I had the privilege of growing up a half hour walk through the woods from my local nature center. Add to that that as a teenager, I volunteered there for my first job. My experience is that animals have at least some level of mind (probably as much as we do, just not under the same rules) and they appear to have free will similar to our own.

 

Well, based somewhat on the neural evolution present. Reptiles don't seem to have quite the same level of free will as mammals do. Often, they seem to be responding to some sort of programmed behavior. However, cats/dogs/horses/etc... seem to be have some level of self determination.

 

Looking at the Battle at Kruger video shows us, to some degree, what cat may have been “programmed for” by evolution. But when my cat jumps on my lap to get the loving, well, that seems unlikely to be some form of programmed behavior.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Look,

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Look, I've discussed this problem philospohically on many occasions...

What problem is that?...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Jean has tinea.

 

redneF wrote:

What problem is that?...

 

He doesn't like to talk openly about it so circles around the topic like an itch.

 

Back to your OP, check out this link, if you've not seen the video already. Dog empathy. It's a bit like watching Lassie but without the annoying boy child.

 

http://www.livescience.com/13302-japan-injured-dog-video-social-animals.html

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Thanks, AE.Another example

Thanks, AE.

Another example showing how 'unselfish' animals can be.

Dolphins also exhibit, not only sympathy, but will defend another dolphin, and other species from attacks by predators like sharks.

 

Animals are compassionate. We are compassionate because we are part of the animal kingdom.

 

I mean, these people are certifiably insane if they think we are not animals.

This is not even up for debate.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris