Chimpanzees, Blades of Grass and the Atheist Argument

Here is a thread on A.T.S. about Chimpanzees making a fashion statement with blades of grass in their ears.

A.T.S. Thread

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.

For the first time, chimpanzees are making a fashion statement

Here is a link to the original study, although it costs money to view, you can view the abstract for free.

What is important to me about this study is that it is an isolated example of culture being utilized in order to do something arbitrary, or for the sake of doing it. There are many atheists who would like to see us only do things that have a purpose, which to them is rooted in evolution, these are the Social Darwinists

I believe that there is an ulterior motive in that kind of thinking in that it takes away individuality and freedom and makes people believe that it is their duty to work for the state and not indulge in "arbitrary" matters.

These 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.

And that is only one specific way to look at proving free will, it could be argued that free will is utilized every time a living entity tries and fails to do the most efficient thing. In fact, evolution is ripe with examples of free will. You just have to look at what failed.

The soul, according to my definition, is what generates our free will and experiences life - neither definition has been disproved by science, and there are many more advanced studies that show evidence of that kind of thing existing. My definition states that the soul is squarely in the exploratory realm of science - something that both atheists and religious folk tend to deny.

But it is an important way to look at things, because not only does the evidence support it, but we risk supporting oppressive governments if atheist policy involving this kind of thinking gets into the upper ranks.

The link in my signature has yet another link to my thesis paper for my psychology major, in which I researched the possibility of a Quantum Theory of Mind, which I still fully support.

Quantum Theory of Mind Thesis Paper

a reply to: darkbake

Sorry but I can't seem to follow your train of thought with this one.

Are you saying that because chimps now have fashion sense that would be evidence for a soul?

Atheist, free will, working for the state, evolution, the soul, freedom...

You’re mixing a lot of big concepts together with very tenuous links, and in the process coming across very confusing and not explaining yourself very well.

Can you offer a one paragraph explanation of what you're trying to get across?

These guys do it too. Whats that say about their sense of style?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Yes.

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.

IV. If free will exists, it has to have an origin.

V. Therefore, by my definition of a soul, a soul has to exist.

Double Post

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?

a reply to: darkbake

Your stereotype of "atheists" is both inaccurate more of a straw man than anything else. In the sense that I do not believe in a supreme being, and certainly not an anthropomorphized person that is central to many of the monotheistic religions; this has been enough for me to have been labeled an atheist. However the some of what you say are total and rather insulting caricatures of an atheist. For example "Atheists will have you believe that there is no soul and no free will" Umm no.. I believe in both. In fact it is our eternal soul that defines who we are and life is nothing but free will. I also believe in an afterlife, just without a old man in a throne passing judgement, and inflicting eternal suffering and torture on people who didn't follow his rules.

If you want to dis materialists and social darwinists.. then go ahead but stop assuming that they are all atheists and that all atheists are materialists and social darwinists.

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?

Bingo, thank you for thinking exactly what I was going to type.

I feel that Darkbake cant come to terms with his/herself. It is either Darkbake's way, or no way at all. Within this I feel that religous insecurity has overtaken DB and he/she has to keep attacking athiest to help justify DB's belief system. Now the chimps are "proof" or an excuse to try to justify his/her beliefs.

Just my opinion after reading many many posts from DB.

I am not trying to be rude or mean, this is the way I honestly feel.

Whether or not we have free will is irrelevant. It APPEARS that we have free will and to our egos, that's all that matters.
Evolutionary biology, sociology and intellect are also in no way mutually exclusive with ideas of godhood, spirituality, faith or belief. In fact they compliment eachother beautifully, in my opinion.

No matter how loud the empty cans rattle on each side of the divide, calling everyone to their one true faith and telling us that we're either smart or dumb, saved or damned. Ignore those "advocates" and "proponents"...they are myopic.
Everything that exists does so for a reason. Everything.

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.

a reply to: liejunkie01

I have read some good threads from DB and there have been some I just couldn't follow. I did notice that she said "some atheists" so that doesn't apply to all. When I am not sure about an OP I try to ask questions to clarify. DB's assumption on what constitutes a souls attributes could be correct, but I want to know how she came to that assumption. (what backs it up). If it is only opinion then this is an opinion piece. If there is more to it then I would like to know.

I try to keep an open mind just enough to let stuff in without having my brain fall out.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I can agree with your assesment.

I alsi try to have an open mind, sometimes it might not show as much as others though.

a reply to: darkbake
You could have made a much better thread if you didn't make it obvious from the title you were having a pop at Athiests. In fact, given how tenuous the links are between the things you have collected here it would seem that is the only reason for this thread.

Epic fail dude!

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.

I was singling out some atheists, as another user noted - not all, because many are even spiritual. From my perspective, the chimpanzees using blades of grass in their ears is arbitrary culture - which is what atheists should view religion as.

So it is an example of a similar phenomenon, but on a smaller scale. I do agree that atheists have it better than religious folk because of their ability to choose, but the ability to choose signifies free will and some atheists don't believe in it.

All religions are cults in the same way that countries are gangs. The biggest fault I find with atheism overall is a lack of common ground that could be a cultural vacuum that could summon in extremism as a response. I would consider myself somewhat of an atheist.

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.

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.

I do not see that a soul is a prerequisite to free will.

I have not seen that this phenomenon is without purpose. It appears to be an element of culture- fashion, which has purpose. Such types of cultural expressions often serve to indicate a specific group membership or class level, which has various purposes for protection, reproductive rights and access to food.

II. The Chimpanzees are doing something arbitrary that has no purpose for evolution. Therefore they must have free will.

See above.

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.

Okay... well with that very special definition of yours, I see what you are trying to build on, but wish you could come up with a persuasive argument for that to make this stand up...The word traditionally indicates an individualized sort of consciousness apart from the biological form.

I suggest that even if we reject the arbitrary nature of the grass-in-the-ear fad, and admit it has purpose for the survival of the group, and the individual within the group, that does not do away with the possibility of a soul- either individual or collective. Why could a soul not have as purpose the survival of it's biological form, for experience?

For example, we are not our cars, and yet we make sure to do whatever we can to keep them running well- we put gas in them, regularly change oil, make repairs..... a soul could have the same sort of concern for their vehicle!


.....but I don't buy your definition of soul, nor of an atheist ! I do not see what an ever powerful entity has to do with any of this. There are spiritual beliefs and views that embrace the concepts of free will and even souls, without such an entity.

Dude...either every living thing has a soul, or no living
thing has a soul...there is either a life force or there isn't.

a reply to: rival

If there is a life force, it doesn't violate any laws of physics or anything at least involving entropy because we get energy from the sun that could be used to run quantum processes.

What I'm saying is the soul energy doesn't come from nowhere. The sun provides energy that is absorbed by plants, which is absorbed by animals and us, and then that energy is used to do various things in the human body, including running whatever equipment is needed to generate free will.

So in the next 100 thousand of year, they'll have spears, and start walking upright? Or will they be an advanced civilization, that collapsed due to the invention called alcohol?