|
Post by Shiggy on Feb 6, 2005 21:16:16 GMT -5
Id say were a little bit more then that. People tell me that dolphins are more intelligetn then humans. Theyve been doing the same thing for thousands of years. Er, dolphins are certainly more intelligent than most other animals but not humans. And what makes you think that humans haven't also been doing "the same thing for thousands of years"? What does this have to do with anything? Are you aware that animals dont all sit around and hug each other. There is a food chain where animals eat other animals. There is sickness among the animals kingdom. Actually, yes, animals do hug each other and express affection through nuzzling, playfulness and grooming. And in case you hadn't noticed, humans also eat other animals. We are also part of the food chain. There is a lot of common ground between human beings and other species of the animal kingdom. Id say each of these is born with an instinct and does that their entire life. They dont fall in love. They dont create works of art. They dont get together to try and understand a higher being. They do what they are programmed to do. Well, to you "falling in love" may seem like a uniquely human phenomenon, but animals also experience loneliness, desire for a partner and, obviously, sexual feelings. Psychological experiments carried out on chimpanzees and other animals have shown that social contact is necessary for animals' healthy development and their attachment processes have been widely studied. Also, just as an interesting point, there are many monmogamous animals. Most Australian parrots constitute one example of this. Needless to say, if one member of a monogamous animal couple dies, there is extreme mourning on the part of the other and death often results. This is also true with most Australian parrots. Many other animals also mourn the death of loved ones. A good example of this is the way elephants co-operatively carry the bodies of family members to elephant graveyards and bury the body. And whether or not animals create what we would classify as "works of art" is still very much an open question. Possible examples could include bowerbirds' display collections, mating rituals and dances and elephant stomping grounds. There are countless examples. The difference between a mouse and a dog is tiny compaired to the difference between a human. How can you not see this. Well, I would counter that the difference between a mouse and a dog is certainly far bigger than that between a chimpanzee and a human
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Feb 6, 2005 21:57:26 GMT -5
the whole thing about mourning death is a good point. ususally when 2 animals that have lived together their whole lives and 1 dies off of old age or in an old age then the other dies within 6-9 months after word. the thing is this statistically occurs both in humans and animals, think what u want but thats some pretty strong emotion on both ends.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Feb 7, 2005 7:07:32 GMT -5
Hell, yeah!
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Feb 7, 2005 9:31:08 GMT -5
Id say were a little bit more then that. People tell me that dolphins are more intelligetn then humans. Theyve been doing the same thing for thousands of years. We've been doing the same things for thousands of years too - eating, living, killing, dying. We might do it differently to animals but, ultimately, we do the same things. They do, but they don't go about wiping out entire species or interfering with the natural order of things to the same extent as we do. Our superior intelligence gave us the power to interfere with nature to that extent; unfortunately it didn't give us the responsibility to go with it. Maybe we're getting slightly more responsible, although we're still killing people who have different ideas to us. Who says I don't get upset? I do, but I recognise the difference between animals being stampeded off a cliff and starting a world war. That's just an opinion - not fact. My belief is that it's just your fear of death and responsibility making you grasp after some sort of security. Why? In case you hear something you don't like? If you never get counter viewpoints from speakers it's no wonder your views are polarized. What 'difference'? Intelligence? Yes of course there's a vast difference in intelligence, but they're born, live their life and they die, just like us. No difference there. You're taking a speciesist approach, thinking that because humans can drive cars, build bridges, create works of art etc., then any creature that doesn't do that is somehow lesser. Get this: lions don't want cars; dolphins don't need bridges; gnus don't care about works of art. These are human values. You probably don't care if there are an extra few wildebeast on the Kenyan plains today, but a lion - with its values - would.
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Feb 7, 2005 11:05:26 GMT -5
No, the theme is 'who is God' that would be stupid to listen to an athiest talk about that. i have to say i honestly feel bad that u r only getting to hear speakers on one side of the matter. if nething it seems more like they r affrade and don't want u to hear the other side of the matter. if they, and u, r so right then what have any of u got to lose by listening to someone with another point of view? i would say that even athiest have a view on who god is, mine just happens to be he was created by humans.
|
|
|
Post by Electron on Feb 7, 2005 16:48:36 GMT -5
The difference between a mouse and a dog is tiny compaired to the difference between a human. How can you not see this. When I look into the eyes of almost any animal I often see much more than a simple reflex machine. I don't need to go to the extent of mentioning primates (for some peculiar reason these appear to be singled-out for distain amongst creationists) that exhibit an almost frightening number of identifiably human traits. I also have to mention the 'dark secret' that I suspect humanity harbours - the fact that homo-sapiens effectively wiped-out close relatives to our species long ago - so widening the gap to the point you now contemplate. This would be perfectly possible given our more "civilised" behaviour in recent times. There seems to be a certain amount of archeological evidence for this too. How ironic it would be if the "special qualities" you belive god bestowed upon man turned out to be no more than our natural aggression towards "people" that are "different" to us. I do sympathise with your emotions though. I always wonder how creationists can overlook the description of such a simple, viable mechanism that has all the power required to evolve all forms of life thus far encountered.
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Feb 7, 2005 22:40:30 GMT -5
i don't know about u but some of the religious ppl i know who seem to be most in ture with their faith so to speak are the 1s who try to incorperate scientific fact and theory into their life. those ppl believe everything that ppl like me believe and still believe in a god the only difference really is that believe god started off the big bang or something like that. i would say that faith makes a hell of a lot more sense to me and the r perfectly happy with how every1 sees the world.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Feb 8, 2005 1:01:43 GMT -5
Their perspective on the superiority of humans we've just been talking about remains at odds with scientific thought, however.
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Feb 8, 2005 7:04:50 GMT -5
oh trust me i know, i was just making the point that people like that have no problem with anything in science we believe for the most part and still have alot of faith.
|
|
|
Post by Electron on Feb 8, 2005 16:50:03 GMT -5
I fear the irrational for I cannot predict its next move. Irrational faith presents a random element that increases the entropy of our environment. Now, I know this sounds like these words might be coming from a paranoid scientific madman - but consider this:
Entropy is a measure of chaos, or randomness. The various religions of the world differ in many ways due to the fact that they do not rest on hypothesis that can be tested. Any number of such hypothesis can so be constructed - giving rise to all the diverse faiths. You, I and everyone else are free to invent our own religion and may have it upheld if we can persuade enough people to share our faith.
This diversity while being to some extent interesting and charming also gives rise to much conflict and disagreement in the world. Nothing can settle such arguments in the way that scientific hypothesis can be validated by experiment.
I would say all that is truly worthwile of our existance are those things that we do that result in a reduction of entropy in our locality. The very existance of life cheats chaos as does our skill in creating art, music etc. Uncovering the very laws of nature allows us to order the cosmos in our minds. This is why I find religion to be so divisive.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Feb 8, 2005 18:16:06 GMT -5
I would say all that is truly worthwile of our existance are those things that we do that result in a reduction of entropy in our locality. I'd say what's truly worthwhile is to seek a life of enlightenment; one without suffering, grasping or fear; one of compassion and wisdom. The best bit of that is that we already have such a life - it's just hidden in ignorance for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Feb 8, 2005 21:09:05 GMT -5
what is true enlightenment though? i don't look at this world in the way most ppl do, even as an athiest my morals and ethics r very different from ne1 i have ever met. i know what i wish to accomplish in my life to make my life worth while and i know how to fullfill what i preceve as the meaning of life. if that is the case am i not enlightened?
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Feb 9, 2005 9:33:32 GMT -5
what is true enlightenment though? Enlightenment is simply being with things as they are in the current moment. The current moment is all that there is - the past is just neurons firing in your brain as memories and the future is just neurons firing as ambitions or expectations. The past and future don't exist in any 'real' sense. There's nothing to cling to with them. Enlightenment is the loss of the ego; the concept of 'I', which is again just neurons firing as a perception of self. It's the opposite to Descartes' "I think therefore I am" in some ways - one simply exists in a non-dual way. Enlightenment is the recognition of impermanence; that everything ends and nothing is worth craving after. Once we see that we are liberated from suffering. But those are just words and they don't really explain things properly. Buddhism has to be experienced to be understood. One can certainly read the words at an intellectual level, but simply agreeing with them isn't enlightenment; it's something that needs to be experienced at a deep level. That is why Buddhists meditate; to calm and clear the mind to try and experience 'satori', which is a glimpse of enlightenment. Then it's a matter of building on that so that the enlightened state becomes more than just a glimpse and permeates 'normal' life too. We are, in fact, already enlightened - it's just that we view the world through de-enlightening spectacles. Like I said though, words don't really help when it comes to real understanding. When asked "What is enlightenment?" a Buddhist monk may reply "a small slice of haddock" or something equally ridiculous. It's up to the student to find out for themselves. The Buddha - who never claimed to be anything but a man, not a god or anything as some of the misinformed think - just gave us a way to get started. He always said that in the end you must forget even what he said. Because enlightenment is already here, there are many different ways to uncover it, hence the different Buddhist schools. Soto schools value the act of Zazen (sitting meditation) as a path to enlightenment, whereas Rinzai schools use Koans (esoteric questions) to promote a more direct enlightenment. God is irrelevant to Buddhism at the deepest level. He may exist and he may not - it doesn't matter because Buddhists tend to believe that if he does exist it's not as any sort of 'persona' in the Abrahamic sense and he certainly doesn't sit in judgement over us. However, clinging to some concept of god will take us away from enlightenment (as will any other clinging). You'll find Buddhist sects that do believe in god (or gods), such as Tibetan Buddhism where Buddhism was merged with a culture that believed in mysticism, spirits and gods. You'll find other Buddhists that don't believe in god at all. It's often hard to explain that indifference to Christians as their god is so central to their Christian lives. I find that they often prefer athiests to Buddhists as the indifference seems to offend them more than a blatent denial! But, when it comes down to it, whatever anyone thinks is fine. It is 'just so' as Buddhists would say. There is no mission to convert the world.
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Feb 9, 2005 9:58:27 GMT -5
i didn't mean that quite so literally, sry, it was meant more as something to consider. however, ur input was interesting sothank you
|
|
|
Post by Electron on Feb 9, 2005 16:38:01 GMT -5
Enlightenment is the recognition of impermanence; that everything ends and nothing is worth craving after. Once we see that we are liberated from suffering. Pardon me for quoting just part of your explanation of the meaning of enlightenment, but to me this highlights an aspect of budhism that I find interesting. It would appear to be verging on the callous - cutting both ways as it were, in the hands of the 'wrong' sort of mind? For me my respect for life comes through my shared experience in 'staving off' entropy. Suffering to me is natures way of telling me that I have come too close to the flame of chaos.
|
|