It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It’s a trend that’s taken a troop of chimpanzees by storm: a blade of grass dangling from an ear. The "grass-in-ear behavior," as scientists have termed it, seems to be one of the first times that chimpanzees have created a tradition with no discernible purpose -- a primate fashion statement, in other words.
There’s no doubt that chimpanzees have culture, as different chimp groups will use unique tools: to groom, to crack open nuts, to fish for termites.
But, according to a study in the journal Animal Cognition, chimpanzee culture now includes something that seems altogether arbitrary: ear accoutrements.
originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: darkbake
So the entire premise hinges on your claim that the only way something can have free will is that it has a soul?
What if free will doesn't require a soul and it is just free will?
originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: darkbake
Your assumption that atheists don't believe in the soul is wildly inaccurate.
Yes, many do believe that, but many also believe in a soul, or are unsure.
And that's the crux of the matter, atheists have the free will to choose in believing in a soul or not.
Whereas with religion, it's indoctrined.
Now, onto the chimps, they have no concept of religion or souls, so using them in a religious argument is completely redundant.
originally posted by: darkbake
I. The evidence for no soul is that there is no free will, and that means that everything happens for the purpose of evolution.
II. The Chimpanzees are doing something arbitrary that has no purpose for evolution. Therefore they must have free will.
III. The definition I made of a soul (because I am not relating it to anything religious) is that it is the originator of free will.