Chimpanzees, Blades of Grass and the Atheist Argument

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

What generates free will and experiences life is the body. It is the only entity we explore and speak of when considering such abstract topics such as soul, mind, consciousness, which in the end are all concepts pertaining to the same exact thing. I don't think it is true that the religious conceptual development of such ideas has any ontological basis other than the lore they are immotilized and institutionalized in.

Souls are only for those that need them.




posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Aphorism

not true
you can see the soul escaping from the mouth or nose on a cold winters eve
if the animal dies you can tell that the soul has left because you will not see it in the air any longer



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

I see, so you are saying that one could not believe in a God but could still be spiritual and believe in a soul, I like this line of reasoning it is closer to my own. There are many different kinds of atheists.

One specific kind does not believe in a soul or free will. They basically don't believe in a life force... although I need to look into more specifics. I have a friend who is a very intelligent atheist of this type and I will ask him his views.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake



Okay, this guy Santana runs a forum that I frequent that is an ongoing debate between creationists and evolutionists. It is run quite well and has intelligent conversation involved.

I am inquiring his views because he is an expert on the topic, of course an evolution guy. That way I can know more specifics about what I'm attempting to critique. He should have some good facts backing up his angle, as well.
edit on 29amSun, 29 Jun 2014 07:44:37 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: sirhumperdink

Are you talking about breathing?

a reply to: Aphorism

Now that's what I'm talking about, solid resistance to my ideas.
edit on 29amSun, 29 Jun 2014 07:50:17 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
I am confused. I thought evolution threw up random patterns of behavior all the time. With 99.9999999 % being completely useless and arbitrary.

It was the minority that made a positive impact that was passed on that we consider evolution. Be it physical or behavioral.


That being said. I still can not figure out Woman and handbags.



Not exactly. Evolution has to do with genes. This behavior has little to do with genes. If it was genetic, one chimp would have done it, and the only way it would have spread through the group is by the offspring of this one chimp also being born doing it - they carried the genes for "grass behind the ear."

In this case, one chimp did it and the other chimps thought it looked cool, so they copied the first. The only way it is genetic is in the fact that chimps can be very "monkey see; monkey do" when it comes to copying behaviors they see others doing (yes, chimps are apes). It's a survival adaptation allowing them to rapidly spread new survival techniques through their troupe. In this case, the chimps aren't passing on a survival technique, but a strictly frivolous one.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

I want to add a second argument in addition to the Chimpanzee example.

II. In competitive cultural evolution there are both the winners and the losers. The losers try something that fails, and is therefore not the most efficient way. They chose a different path.
edit on 29amSun, 29 Jun 2014 07:57:23 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


a reply to: ketsuko

I caught myself on this too, Ketsuko. I think this example is more in the realm of culture. But I think that culture can evolve in a competitive environment, as well - for example, Chess or Go - and other aspects of life.

Corporations are a specific example.
edit on 29amSun, 29 Jun 2014 08:27:29 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake



... Atheists will have you believe that there is no soul and no free will - but the example with the Chimpanzees is an isolated example of free will in action - there was no evolutionary purpose to the blades of grass. ...


I have two contentions with this statement...

#1 - I do not agree that being an atheist determines there is no such thing as free-will
#2 - the 1st chimp in the colony decided to set themselves apart from the crowd by being chic with ear ornaments,
since others copied that behavior to attract attention & set them apart... thus advertising they will entertain a certain network of 'friends'.... a totally necessity in real time mate selection/ and evolution of culture promoting refinement of behavior, instead of being gross by sticking Chimp fingers in sensitive areas for example

edit on th30140404724229072014 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Just curious.. Is there a differentiation made between a "spirit" and a "soul?" Its an important question, given the implications made in the OP. Many religions state that they are different, so its an important facet to the discussion.

Even in the religious definition, I see no reason why an atheist would have any issue with it beyond semantics. To many religious folk, the "soul" is essentially the "mind." Seems to be a small point, but its one of those things that can cause great discrepancies in communication.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

I take issue with the idea of free will having to have a source.
My natural question is why?|
It's not inherent to the question of whether or not we have free will.
Sure, it's window dressing for theistic argument, but why?



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

Soul and spirit as levels of self-hood:



My two cents: The soul is that which we can speak of, because it is the other. The Divine immanent in spacetime and therefore in symbolic, mythological, often anthropomorphic form.

The undifferentiated spirit, on the otherhand, can't be spoken of. It's the Divine transcendent of duality, form. We can't speak of it any more than our teeth can chew themselves, or our eye can see itself. Pure awareness, but of no specific thing. The unspeakable void.

edit on 654SundayuAmerica/ChicagoJunuSundayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake


Now that's what I'm talking about, solid resistance to my ideas.


Unfortunately there is not much to resist, darkbake. I see a number of assertions with little grounds to place them on.

I don't subscribe to any social Darwinism and see atheism as a refutation of nothing. Your plight against atheism is something I agree with. But I don't know how you've posited a soul, or how you've reached your answers reasonably.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

You are correct. Even "mind" is embedded in folk psychology. They are all placeholders for misunderstandings of the human being.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Thank you for sharing BM


I was more asking darkbake his view on it, since it can completely change exactly what he is attempting to communicate.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

But atheists don't have this set of beliefs:
There is no soul
There is no free will
Everything happens for evolution.

So, I don't understand your point. The only belief atheists have is that there is no deity. Nothing to do with a soul, free will or even evolution.

Ooh! metamagic said it much better than I!
edit on 6/29/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

No prob. Hopefully that visual aid will help you and he get on the same page.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

No one speaks for all theists or all atheists, but it helps, eh? :p

The experience of that which people are calling the soul is a mystical, transpersonal experience. Generally, atheists are not mystically inclined. It's not "concrete" enough, not rational enough. There are exceptions, such as Sam Harris. But the exception proves the rule.

"One problem with atheism as a category of thought, is that it seems more or less synonymous with not being interested in what someone like the Buddha or Jesus may have actually experienced. In fact, many atheists reject such experiences out of hand, as either impossible, or if possible, not worth wanting. Another common mistake is to imagine that such experiences are necessarily equivalent to states of mind with which many of us are already familiar—the feeling of scientific awe, or ordinary states of aesthetic appreciation, artistic inspiration, etc." -Sam Harris


edit on 710SundayuAmerica/ChicagoJunuSundayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   

a reply to: ketsuko

I caught myself on this too, Ketsuko. I think this example is more in the realm of culture. But I think that culture can evolve in a competitive environment, as well - for example, Chess or Go - and other aspects of life.

Corporations are a specific example.


Yes, but allow me to put on my professional hat for just a second. "Evolution" in the context of culture and in the context I and the poster I responded to were using are slightly different meanings and contexts.

We were talking about, I think (or at least I was), about "The theory that groups of organisms, as species, may change with the passage of time so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors," and you are talking about either "The gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form" or "The gradual process of the development or growth of something, such as a social institution." The three definitions are very similar and all for the same word, but you can't use them interchangeably, either. When you start to, confusion arises.

I had similar issue this week with the word "concern" in my editing/proofreading work.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

If I may butt in.
Actually, the only commonality between "atheists" is a lack of belief in a diety.
Case in point, I am a agnostic atheist.
Meaning I don't know if a diety exists or not.



posted on Jun, 29 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

If I may butt in.
Actually, the only commonality between "atheists" is a lack of belief in a diety.
Case in point, I am a agnostic atheist.
Meaning I don't know if a diety exists or not.


I thought that meant you were simply agnostic.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join