242 replies to this topic

[Alakhriveion]

If it's too confusing, then I cannot help you. You are looking at it on a superficial level. If you get down to the very detail of WHY we make decisions, and what MAKES us decide to change, then no, we have as much free will as any creature on this planet.
WHY would you change, if you wanted to? What would instigate that change? Can you control those elements that make your brain want to change? No. Is that free will? No. Is that any different from a dog learning that if it sits when told it gets a treat, thus it changes it's behavior? No.

Rule 2.1: If you had answers to "why," you wouldn't be on the internet. People have pondered this shit for a while, don't act like you have the answer.

[Fyxe]

Um. Ok, you missed my point entirely there so you could... Make a banal comment about the internet?

I'm offended, frankly. You take enjoyment in jumping into the middle of discussions and making wild assumptions about the participants?

I don't have the answers. I never said I did. But I know enough about psychology to know that all humans do things for a REASON, and that that those reasons are simply defined by learned information, genetic inheritance and instinct. And there's no reason to believe animals make choices any differently, in fact evidence seems to show that's exactly how they make choices.

I don't know what kind of point you were trying to make there, Alakhriveion. No offense, but that post was really out of the blue and seems to have totally missed everything I was trying to say. Please can you take the time to read what I'm saying before you berate me on rules I haven't broken?

Edited by Fyxe, 30 December 2005 - 08:08 PM.

[Alakhriveion]

Um. Ok, you missed my point entirely there so you could... Make a banal comment about the internet?

What point did I miss? You suggested you have a firmer grasp on a "why" question than another person. You don't. Trust me.

I'm offended, frankly. You take enjoyment in jumping into the middle of discussions and making wild assumptions about the participants?

Is it a wild assumption that you're human?

I don't have the answers. I never said I did. But I know enough about psychology to know that all humans do things for a REASON, and that that those reasons are simply defined by learned information, genetic inheritance and instinct. And there's no reason to believe animals make choices any differently, in fact evidence seems to show that's exactly how they make choices.

"The reason stuff happens is other stuff," while perfectly true, isn't something anybody doubted, OR what you said. You want to say you know more about HOW things happen, not WHY things happen. The only people who know WHY things happen are me and the Dalai Lama (Well maybe not the Dalai Lama). Now, the fact is, while we can say we know what inputs result in what outputs for people and animals, we don't know jack about the mind.

I don't know what kind of point you were trying to make there, Alakhriveion. No offense, but that post was really out of the blue and seems to have totally missed everything I was trying to say. Please can you take the time to read what I'm saying before you berate me on rules I haven't broken?

You didn't break a rule, you proved it. These aren't rules like forum rules, these are more like Gravity. Rule 2.1 dictates that nobody on the Internet has the answers, but most if not all will claim to at some point.

[Selena]

Rule 2.1 dictates that nobody on the Internet has the answers, but most if not all will claim to at some point.

Including yourself, apparently, since you claim to know 'why'. Yet you're still using the internet...

I know, but we're now discussing philosophical issues here. Aren't we?

I'd say it was a conjectural discussion. None of us know the real answers, especially since the animal (and human, for that matter) mind is still being researched and is far from understood. So we can only draw information from what scant evidence is out there and use it to our favor. But, I think the converstation's run its course by now. There's been nothing new introduced for a while, and we're doing nothing more than arguing over a few minute points that can't possibly be proved at this point and time. As we've been doing that for the last few pages. It's the net's way of saying 'go argue about something more productive', perhaps.

[Alakhriveion]

Including yourself, apparently, since you claim to know 'why'. Yet you're still using the internet...

That part where I said I did know? Facetious.

[Dai Grepher]

Toan: Why do humans prefer themselves?

Dai Grepher: Humans are the dominant species.

Toan: We will kill and rape Mother Nature and her creations in an instant, but when it comes to each other, we are punished quite severely.

Dai Grepher: Everything in this world is here for us to use for our own benefit.

Toan: Think about it - I could go outside run over a squirrel while driving somewhere and nobody cares enough to DO something about it, but if I went outside and killed my drug-dealing neighbor, suddenly I'm facing serious criminal charges and, if found guilty by a jury of peers, prison time. Apparently trash like my neighbor is contributing to society more than the squirrel is, but it certainly can't be by much.

Dai Grepher: No one cares about a squirrel because there are many. There is only one Jason Keller (drug dealer, gave him a name since you obviously overlooked the fact that he is person with a name and soul) though, and that human being is an individual that someone may love or is trying to help. You have no right to pass judgment on him like that.
Besides, who likes squirrels anyway? They are always burying acorns on my front and back lawns and leaving brown clumps of dirt all over them. Remember, that makes my yard look nasty and it also hurts Mother Nature. We should run over squirrels more often.

Toan: Now, if I swerved to avoid the squirrel and instead hit an oncoming car and killed the driver, people read the article in the paper and think "He should've just hit the squirrel." Why? There's got to be less squirrels than the 6.5 billion people on Earth, yet humans, even scum, are worth more in collective human mind than a squirrel.

Dai Grepher: Brown clumps of dirt all over an otherwise beautiful sea of green grass.

Toan: "That driver had a family he/she's left behind now!" Presumably so did the squirrel. We make such a big deal out of the death of another human, yet a mashed squirrel in the road is simply an eyesore and something you don't want to get on your tires.

Dai Grepher: Killing the squirrel provides a meal for the other woodland animals, and thus the circle of life continues. Plus, a squirrel can decompose. A car will leak oil and other hazardous fluids, so wouldn't you rather run over the squirrel?

Toan: Animals kill each other to stay eat, protect themselves, and stay alive.

Dai Greper: To stay eat huh? I never knew that.

Toan: Essentially we do the same thing. We're animals too - animals with ego, who think just because our brains comprehend more than anything else on Earth, we are above it and better than it as well. Is it religion that tells us we are better - religion that hasn't been proved in the least? Another manifestation of humanity to justifiy our heresy against Earth.

Dai Grepher: We are not animals. We are human beings. We are at the top of the food chain and we are the dominant species because we are the smartest and thus most powerful. Also, God's existence has been proven to those who believe in Him because we have a spiritual knowledge of His presence within and around us.

Toan: Assume that a God created Earth and put man upon it. Is destroying his other creations (other than man, or even including man) really a great way to say "Hey, Diety, thanks bro!" The word 'hypocricy' comes to mind when countless religions pray and give thanks to God, then return to work to destroy the big man's (or woman's... *shrug*) creations.

Dai Grepher: God is a male. He also put animals on the earth for man to use. At first the intention was just to keep them all as pets and name them, but then man disobeyed God and from then on animal kind became a tool of man to be used for food, clothing, sacrifice unto God, etc.

Toan: I'm not saying I don't care if someone dies, far from it. But I do think that if something is killed, it should at least get proper and equal respect in death, human or not.

Dai Grepher: So you're saying next time I kill a squirrel that I should get out of my car, scrape it off the road and my tire, put it in a pine box and lower it into the ground while bagpipes play in the distance so that the squirrel’s family can drop dandelions on the grave to pay their respects?

[Selena]

I usually don't like to debate with you, but...


Okay. We're top species and top of the food chain. Looking at animals and the rest of nature simply as a 'tool' is a reckless idea. Nature doesn't replenish itself as fast as greedy humans can destroy it. You, as dominant creature (for now, anyway), have a responsibility to make sure nature is healthy and can sustain the rest of creatures on earth. You use what you need and leave the rest, and you should, ideally, respect nature (or god) for giving you the things necessary to survive. Your tool doesn't come without a price tag.

Dai Grepher: No one cares about a squirrel because there are many. There is only one Jason Keller (drug dealer, gave him a name since you obviously overlooked the fact that he is person with a name and soul) though, and that human being is an individual that someone may love or is trying to help. You have no right to pass judgment on him like that.

Okay, I name THAT squirrel *points to one* Jimmy. I like Jimmy. He's one squirrel among many others in the neighborhood. Just like your Jason is one drug dealer among many. There. The animal has a name.

And most animals don't venture onto roads to eat the aforementioned dead squirrel with cars passing to and from the area. The things that 'eat' your squirrels are usually inmates doing community service.

but then man disobeyed God and from then on animal kind became a tool of man to be used for food, clothing, sacrifice unto God, etc.

Didn't know people other than maybe Satanists were still into animal sacrifice, but okay...

Dai Greper: To stay eat huh? I never knew that.

People occasionally make typos. Believe it!





Pulling a Bible, despite being agnostic, Proverbs 14:7 comes to mind, so I think I'm gonna leave now.

[Toan]

Again, quotes tags are your friends. EDIT: Strike that, I just saw what you said in the other thread. Lemme see if there's a way I can up that limit and see if the admins are alright with it because, let's face it folks, 10 tags per post just isn't enough sometimes.

Dai Grepher: Humans are the dominant species.

Just because we are the dominant species doesn't mean we need to disrespect and trample the toes of those below us.

Dai Grepher: Everything in this world is here for us to use for our own benefit.

Yup, exactly. Earth is just like Fubu - "For Us By Us". Show me the tag that says "100% Cotton Dry Clean Only", oh enlightened one.

Dai Grepher: No one cares about a squirrel because there are many. There is only one Jason Keller (drug dealer, gave him a name since you obviously overlooked the fact that he is person with a name and soul) though, and that human being is an individual that someone may love or is trying to help. You have no right to pass judgment on him like that.
Besides, who likes squirrels anyway? They are always burying acorns on my front and back lawns and leaving brown clumps of dirt all over them. Remember, that makes my yard look nasty and it also hurts Mother Nature. We should run over squirrels more often.

In my eyes, certain animals have souls, the same way certain people do too. It's easy to overlook something when it doesn't exist, you know. Where do you get the authority or power to say what I can and can't pass judgement on?

Dai Grepher: Brown clumps of dirt all over an otherwise beautiful sea of green grass.

So you're saying you love things without souls over things that may or may not? I see, things are making sense now.

Dai Greper: To stay eat huh? I never knew that.

Oh har har. The fact that you're choosing to pick my grammatical errors over my thoughts is satisfying - apparently the only way you think you can combat me in debate is by focusing on other things... y'know, besides the debate.

Dai Grepher: We are not animals. We are human beings. We are at the top of the food chain and we are the dominant species because we are the smartest and thus most powerful. Also, God's existence has been proven to those who believe in Him because we have a spiritual knowledge of His presence within and around us.

Sorry, I meant real and physical proof. Easy to get confused, I know.

Dai Grepher: God is a male. He also put animals on the earth for man to use. At first the intention was just to keep them all as pets and name them, but then man disobeyed God and from then on animal kind became a tool of man to be used for food, clothing, sacrifice unto God, etc.

My my my! We do have a problem with providing proof today, don't we? Show me God's penis, and I'll accept that your diety is a man. Then we can move onto proving what else you said.

Dai Grepher: So you're saying next time I kill a squirrel that I should get out of my car, scrape it off the road and my tire, put it in a pine box and lower it into the ground while bagpipes play in the distance so that the squirrel’s family can drop dandelions on the grave to pay their respects?

Respects don't have to be paid in the same way as funerals, bud. You can be sorry you killed something without going through ceremonies.

Edited by Toan, 30 December 2005 - 11:52 PM.

[Dai Grepher]

I usually don't like to debate with you, but...
Okay. We're top species and top of the food chain. Looking at animals and the rest of nature simply as a 'tool' is a reckless idea. Nature doesn't replenish itself as fast as greedy humans can destroy it.

Dai Grepher: It does when humans replenish the resources that they take.

You, as dominant creature (for now, anyway), have a responsibility to make sure nature is healthy and can sustain the rest of creatures on earth.

Dai Grepher: Check. Not that "Mother Nature" needs our help, but we are doing that already.

You use what you need and leave the rest, and you should, ideally, respect nature (or god) for giving you the things necessary to survive.

Dai Grepher: Check and double check.

Your tool doesn't come without a price tag.

Dai Grepher: Actually, yes it does. We make a profit off of the materials, and that covers resource replenishment (cheap) as well as resource extraction and transportation (somewhat costly).

Okay, I name THAT squirrel *points to one* Jimmy. I like Jimmy. He's one squirrel among many others in the neighborhood. Just like your Jason is one drug dealer among many. There. The animal has a name.

Dai Grepher: No soul, no intelligence, no big deal. A squirrel with a first, middle, and last name... maybe.

And most animals don't venture onto roads to eat the aforementioned dead squirrel with cars passing to and from the area. The things that 'eat' your squirrels are usually inmates doing community service.

Dai Grepher: So now you want to take food away from inmates as well? Dead squirrel is part of an inmate's balanced breakfast you know.

Didn't know people other than maybe Satanists were still into animal sacrifice, but okay...
People occasionally make typos. Believe it!

Dai Grepher: Whoa now, no reason to be elitist and push your views on me with that infamous suspend worthy saying.

Pulling a Bible, despite being agnostic, Proverbs 14:7 comes to mind, so I think I'm gonna leave now.

Dai Grepher: Then I have God to thank for yet another blessing.

Just because we are the dominant species doesn't mean we need to disrespect and trample the toes of those below us.

Dai Grepher: I never said we needed to. It just does not really matter if it happens.

Yup, exactly. Earth is just like Fubu - "For Us By Us". Show me the tag that says "100% Cotton Dry Clean Only", oh enlightened one.

Dai Grepher: .…. So… you agree with me then?

Toan: In my eyes, certain animals have souls, the same way certain people do too.

Dai Grepher: Certain animals? Oh, that is discrimination against animals. You can't do that. What is that about certain people? Are you saying some people do not have souls while others do?

Toan: It's easy to overlook something when it doesn't exist, you know. Where do you get the authority or power to say what I can and can't pass judgement on?

Dai Grepher: The Holy Bible, God's word. I am also telling you WHOM you cannot pass judgment on, not what.

Toan: So you're saying you love things without souls over things that may or may not? I see, things are making sense now.

Dai Greper: Whoa, wait a minute. How do you know blades of grass do not have souls?

Toan: Oh har har. The fact that you're choosing to pick my grammatical errors over my thoughts is satisfying - apparently the only way you think you can combat me in debate is by focusing on other things... y'know, besides the debate.

Dai Grepher: Uh oh... he knows...

Toan: Sorry, I meant real and physical proof. Easy to get confused, I know.

Dai Grepher: We have that too, but none that cannot by refuted or denied by those who wish to believe something else. Sort of like the Zero Mission debate...

Toan: My my my! We do have a problem with providing proof today, don't we? Show me God's penis, and I'll accept that your diety is a man. Then we can move onto proving what else you said.

Dai Grepher: The Bible always refers to God as a He, Him, or God the Father. If you want proof of the rest then read the book of Genesis.

Toan: Respects don't have to be paid in the same way as funerals, bud. You can be sorry you killed something without going through ceremonies.

Dai Grepher: Why should I feel sorry about it? What about animals that I actually want dead? Should I refrain from killing them or what?

[Toan]

Dai Grepher: .…. So… you agree with me then?

Looks like I'm refraining from sarcasm from now on.

Dai Grepher: The Holy Bible, God's word. I am also telling you WHOM you cannot pass judgment on, not what.

So because you believe in a silly little bedtime story, you can pass judgement on others while I can't? Gotta love cults.

Dai Greper: Whoa, wait a minute. How do you know blades of grass do not have souls?

I don't know, but majority (oh, that pesky majority again) believes they don't.

Dai Grepher: Uh oh... he knows...

Hehehehe...

Dai Grepher: We have that too, but none that cannot by refuted or denied by those who wish to believe something else. Sort of like the Zero Mission debate...

I'm forced to agree with you on this point. Quite true.

Dai Grepher: The Bible always refers to God as a He, Him, or God the Father. If you want proof of the rest then read the book of Genesis.

I think God doesn't have a gender, and using "He" was merely a way to making the Bible easier to write.

Dai Grepher: Why should I feel sorry about it? What about animals that I actually want dead? Should I refrain from killing them or what?

I think killing without purpose is wrong. My beliefs aren't necessarily yours though... and for arguemental purposes, hatred isn't a reason to kill in my opinion.

EDIT: Oops, almost forgot this one:

Dai Grepher: Certain animals? Oh, that is discrimination against animals. You can't do that. What is that about certain people? Are you saying some people do not have souls while others do?

I really don't think some people have souls. Call me silly, but I think Rowling (Potter author) was onto something when she said "Killing tears apart the soul" through Dumbledore in her latest book (Horcruxes).

Edited by Toan, 31 December 2005 - 01:16 AM.

[Chikara Nadir]

Dai Grepher: It does when humans replenish the resources that they take.

Except that we very seldom do that. We have no deep wisdom about exactly how many of what plant should be placed in a spot that we just clearcut, and although in SOME places we do replant trees (though usually only one or two species to replace the dozen that were once there), there are many, many other places in the world where the trees go- and never come back. Urban sprawl is out of control, animals are forced to dig through our garbage because their hunting grounds have been obliterated (then we freak out when they're in OUR territory), and outside of the United States I see very few laws in many countries forbidding massive destruction of rainforests with rare, threatened, and endangered animals. I also see many people dumping sewage, crude oil, and other waste into the marine environment in many places in the world, which helps absolutely nothing. That does NOT show great intelligence or foresight on the behalf of mankind.

[Dai Grepher]

Looks like I'm refraining from sarcasm from now on.

Dai Grepher: Good, but also say what you meant in this post. I assume you were asking for proof that the world's resources are here for mankind's benefit. Well, look at where you are. You are on earth and you are living in a house/apartment that is made of materials found in nature. You exist as a part of a species of intelligent beings that can manipulate the earth as they see fit. This includes using that which is on the earth. Now, is there anything in this world that stops us from doing that? No. That means the world and its resources are here for our use.

So because you believe in a silly little bedtime story, you can pass judgement on others while I can't? Gotta love cults.

Dai Grepher: I never said I could pass judgment on anyone. Whose posts are you reading? And do not call my faith a cult or God's word a little bedtime story or I will report you for disrespecting and slandering my faith.

I don't know, but majority (oh, that pesky majority again) believes they don't.

Dai Grepher: Plants respond to human voices and music. The majority believes that animals don't have souls. Some believe humans don't. Does that make it right for anyone to kill you because they think that way? No, because you have a life and you have awareness and a soul because you know you do. It is a fact that people have souls. It is not a fact that plants or animals do. In fact, it is unlikely. So again, all those things are here to sustain us.

I think God doesn't have a gender, and using "He" was merely a way to making the Bible easier to write.

Dai Grepher: So you believe that the Bible is the word of God right? Are you saved?

I think killing without purpose is wrong. My beliefs aren't necessarily yours though... and for arguemental purposes, hatred isn't a reason to kill in my opinion.

Dai Grepher: OK then, that means I can kill spiders, flies, bees, mice, bats, moles, crows, ally cats, loose dogs and pests like those right? If so, should I feel sorry about doing it?

I really don't think some people have souls. Call me silly, but I think Rowling (Potter author) was onto something when she said "Killing tears apart the soul" through Dumbledore in her latest book (Horcruxes).

Dai Grepher: As requested... you are silly.

Except that we very seldom do that. We have no deep wisdom about exactly how many of what plant should be placed in a spot that we just clearcut, and although in SOME places we do replant trees (though usually only one or two species to replace the dozen that were once there), there are many, many other places in the world where the trees go- and never come back.

Dai Grepher: Come on, we replenish all the time. How many do we plant? Well that is not a tough one at all. Just plant one tree for every tree cut down. The main problem that we had or have is erosion. I think in those cases we have learned from our mistakes and we no longer clear cut areas where the land might slide. As far as planting trees and not have them come back, that is news to me, and I like my news to have a source or two.

Urban sprawl is out of control, animals are forced to dig through our garbage because their hunting grounds have been obliterated (then we freak out when they're in OUR territory),

Dai Grepher: No one is forcing them to go through our garbage. Maybe Big Macs taste better to animals than grass and berries do. You know how we are always trying to find things to do with our garbage. Problem solved.
OK, seriously I do not think any animals are having their hunting grounds taken away. There is so much unused space in America. There are miles and miles of fields and forests all over the Untied States for these animals to live on and off of. If not, then we can just put them in a zoo. That is the life for any animal. Just sitting around all day in a nice cool habitat, and having people feed and clean up after you. Not having a care in the world.

and outside of the United States I see very few laws in many countries forbidding massive destruction of rainforests with rare, threatened, and endangered animals.

Dai Grepher: All the more reason for America to claim South America as a US territory.

I also see many people dumping sewage, crude oil, and other waste into the marine environment in many places in the world, which helps absolutely nothing.

Dai Grepher: Uh yeah, especially not the people supposedly dumping it. I do not believe a word of that.

Chikara Nadir: That does NOT show great intelligence or foresight on the behalf of mankind.

Dai Grepher: Well, at least we can always move to another planet.
Seriously though, I think the environmentalists blow pollution and resource extraction way out of proportion. Nuclear waste is the thing you should worry about. That is some nasty stuff right there let me tell you.

[spunky-monkey]

Dai Grepher: Humans are the dominant species.
Besides, who likes squirrels anyway?
Dai Grepher: God is a male. He also put animals on the earth for man to use. At first the intention was just to keep them all as pets and name them, but then man disobeyed God and from then on animal kind became a tool of man to be used for food, clothing, sacrifice unto God, etc.

Humans are the dominant species...can't argue with that. I like squirrels! ...way more than some person's cat mucking about in my garden that's for sure. Leave the Supernatural out of this topic please. It has nothing to do with the Natural world or order. And saying that a deity has, or needs, a gender is a dangerous assumption.

In my eyes, certain animals have souls, the same way certain people do too. It's easy to overlook something when it doesn't exist, you know.

Dolphins are a classic example, any animal that will put itself in danger to help you has to have a soul.

[Toan]

Dai Grepher: So you believe that the Bible is the word of God right? Are you saved?

Absolutely not. If there is a God (which I'll reserve for another topic), I doubt he'd talk to us at all. There's no substantial proof other than the word of a couple of men who decided to sit down a write a book about how nice we should be to others, which apparently went over wrong because instead of actually being nice, people just worship God and Jesus, then get back to their sinful lives under the dellusion that their precious book and faith, regardless of their actions, will bring them salvation in the afterlife.

"Forgive me Father, for I have sinned. I killed a man."
"That's bad. Don't it again."
"Okay."

Well whaddya know, everything is okay again. How delightful.

Dai Grepher: OK then, that means I can kill spiders, flies, bees, mice, bats, moles, crows, ally cats, loose dogs and pests like those right? If so, should I feel sorry about doing it?

So it seems the word killing doesn't apply to anything but humans in your case? Killing is killing, PERIOD. If you kill, despite what it is, you should at least respect it and have a damn good reason for killing whatever it is you killed. Go back and read what was said earlier in here, that certain tribes in different parts of the world praise and give respect tom animals that they've hunted and use as much as they can of the body. We could do with taking a leaf out of their book.

Dai Grepher: As requested... you are silly.

Aaaand since you didn't bother reading what I said... *ahem* "So… you agree with me then?"

As far as planting trees and not have them come back, that is news to me, and I like my news to have a source or two.

Chik never said they DO plant trees in return in these areas. Only some places do, but more than half the time trees are cut, and Wal-Marts replace them, not more trees.

Since we are on the subject of proof, something you rarely provide:

It is a fact that people have souls.

I'd like to see a website that says this is true - preferably something from a reputable website.

And do not call my faith a cult or God's word a little bedtime story or I will report you for disrespecting and slandering my faith.

Funny how you praise the death of living things, yet I say what I did about your faith and you get all huffy-puffy. Makes me think, actually.

But I'll give you a chance to defend yourself. Prove the difference between cults and religion, and prove the the bible is indeed God's word (again from reputable sources) and I'll revoke what I said.

Edited by Toan, 31 December 2005 - 05:12 PM.

[Chikara Nadir]

Dai Grepher: Uh yeah, especially not the people supposedly dumping it. I do not believe a word of that.

What, you don't believe that dumping is taking place? If so, then where the heck do you live? Because I see it on the news all the time, and not just in foreign countries, but I hear of major crude oil leaks on the coasts of my own state. Accidental at times, yes- but not too often do the companies come forward to say "yup, we were the ones who did it, and we're willing to pay for damages". As for dumping of general garbage, we have massive beach cleanups every year, and we don't just find pop cans in the sand and rocks. We find tires, refridgerators, entire vehicles abandoned on deserted beaches or by riverbanks.

Seriously though, I think the environmentalists blow pollution and resource extraction way out of proportion. Nuclear waste is the thing you should worry about. That is some nasty stuff right there let me tell you.

Still a manmade problem. Let's not even get into why we have so much waste- yes, quite a bit of it comes from us trying to find reliable sources of energy. But how much also came from attempting to create the perfect nuclear warheads and the such during WWII and the Cold War? If we were truly a perfect species, we wouldn't be concerned by such anti-productive concepts as war.

I want to see one clear-cut piece of evidence to prove that we're not the most self-destructive species on the planet.

[Dai Grepher]

Humans are the dominant species...can't argue with that. I like squirrels! ...way more than some person's cat mucking about in my garden that's for sure. Leave the Supernatural out of this topic please. It has nothing to do with the Natural world or order. And saying that a deity has, or needs, a gender is a dangerous assumption.

Dai Grepher: I do not think it is wrong to discuss God creating the world in this topic, since it is a fact to me and a possibility to you.
I agree that cats are worse than squirrels though.

Dolphins are a classic example, any animal that will put itself in danger to help you has to have a soul.

Dai Grepher: Intelligence yes. Souls no.

Absolutely not. If there is a God (which I'll reserve for another topic), I doubt he'd talk to us at all. There's no substantial proof other than the word of a couple of men who decided to sit down a write a book about how nice we should be to others, which apparently went over wrong because instead of actually being nice, people just worship God and Jesus, then get back to their sinful lives under the dellusion that their precious book and faith, regardless of their actions, will bring them salvation in the afterlife.

"Forgive me Father, for I have sinned. I killed a man."
"That's bad. Don't it again."
"Okay."

Well whaddya know, everything is okay again. How delightful.

Dai Grepher: That is a horrible misconception about the Bible and salvation, but back to the point. I was going to suggest that if you were to get saved then we can both find out what gender God is when we get to heaven and one can tell the other "I told you so". However, if you are not saved then you will never know.

So it seems the word killing doesn't apply to anything but humans in your case? Killing is killing, PERIOD. If you kill, despite what it is, you should at least respect it and have a damn good reason for killing whatever it is you killed.

Dai Grepher: That is what I am saying. Of course killing applies to ceasing the life of anything that lives. I am asking why I should respect a spider when I decide to spray it with Raid. Also, is fact that I do not want the spider in my house reason enough to kill it?

Go back and read what was said earlier in here, that certain tribes in different parts of the world praise and give respect tom animals that they've hunted and use as much as they can of the body. We could do with taking a leaf out of their book.

Dai Grepher: Most of those people are savages that have other “less admirable” traits. A lot of their "respect" is out of religion, like Hindus and cows.

Aaaand since you didn't bother reading what I said... *ahem* "So… you agree with me then?"

Dai Grepher: I read what you said and called you silly. How does that imply that I agree with you? If you were suggesting that people who do evils have no souls, then no, I disagree. If all evil people had no souls then there would be no reason for Hell besides keeping Satan there.

Chik never said they DO plant trees in return in these areas. Only some places do, but more than half the time trees are cut, and Wal-Marts replace them, not more trees.

Dai Grepher: ... What are we talking about?

I'd like to see a website that says this is true - preferably something from a reputable website.

Dai Grepher: No mere website can answer that for a fact. Only the word of God can do that. God talks about man having a spirit numerous times throughout the Bible and says it is the form we will exist in after life on Earth.

Funny how you praise the death of living things, yet I say what I did about your faith and you get all huffy-puffy. Makes me think, actually.

Dai Grepher: I praise no such thing.

But I'll give you a chance to defend yourself. Prove the difference between cults and religion, and prove the the bible is indeed God's word (again from reputable sources) and I'll revoke what I said.

Dai Grepher: In a different topic perhaps. I do so hate when people lead away from the subject. You should take back what you said because it is in violation of the rules.

Chikara Nadir: What, you don't believe that dumping is taking place? If so, then where the heck do you live? Because I see it on the news all the time, and not just in foreign countries, but I hear of major crude oil leaks on the coasts of my own state.

Dai Grepher: I watch the news all the time and I have not heard of any since Exxon Valdez. Of course New Orleans let out some oil too but that was nature's fault.

Chikara Nadir: Accidental at times, yes- but not too often do the companies come forward to say "yup, we were the ones who did it, and we're willing to pay for damages". As for dumping of general garbage, we have massive beach cleanups every year, and we don't just find pop cans in the sand and rocks. We find tires, refridgerators, entire vehicles abandoned on deserted beaches or by riverbanks.

Dai Grepher: Are you sure it was not intended to be an artificial reef? Really though, that is a result of individuals throwing their trash away however they can without paying. I found an abandoned car in a river near my house once.

Chikara Nadir: Still a manmade problem. Let's not even get into why we have so much waste- yes, quite a bit of it comes from us trying to find reliable sources of energy. But how much also came from attempting to create the perfect nuclear warheads and the such during WWII and the Cold War? If we were truly a perfect species, we wouldn't be concerned by such anti-productive concepts as war.

Dai Grepher: The research and development of nuclear bombs is always justified when America does it. We have to protect the world from evil empires that wish to rule by using nuclear weapons.

Chikara Nadir: I want to see one clear-cut piece of evidence to prove that we're not the most self-destructive species on the planet.

Dai Grepher: Male loci allow the female to eat their heads after intercourse. Same with many spiders.
Also, I do not think that different races should be classified as being the same species, although they technically are all human the differences between us all create feelings of destroying the other races that do not share our ideals or the races that want to destroy us. In reality, the animal kingdom is no different. Certain animals of the same species war for territory, dominance, and food. We just do it on a grander scale.

[deuterium]

Dai Grepher, you have upset me almost beyond words. You obviously know nothing about ecology. The old human view of everything is to serve us is merely our lust for the power of control and our greed. You don't understand about a dynamic equilibrium. Squrrels bury acorns as a method of helping plant trees. Another species who does this are Blue Jays. This inturn, may provide homes for a species who needs young trees to survive (ex: breeding and nesting). So, losing certain species will mean our downfall. If you think what happened because of hurricane Katrina is bad, losing keystone species will be even worse. Every species is important. While there are good people (and to name a few in this thread: Toan, Selena and Chikara Nadir) the rest of the human race doesn't care (which is a big mistake). We humans exploit every resource we find and ruin ecosystems (though, we are trying our best to make real headway into solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy and other renewable sources of energy). We are the most energy/resource intensive, intrusive and we are the most invasive species. You complain about a few Squirrels? Try a few billion humans who are trying to survive and maintaining a level of living that draws heavily on energy and resources. We are truly high maintenance. I'm not saying we can't have anything but we must do so with ecosystem protection and conservation in mind.

You also mentioned that we are on top of the food chain. This is true but the one belonging only to agriculture (ranching and farming) and so-called sport hunting. We are not on top of most food webs. Food chains are simplified which tells me you don't know ecology. Even though farms are man made, they still affect natural dynamic ecosystems. Everything we do affects the ecosphere. In terms of resources, matter just doesn't simply go away. Why do you think we have more recycling efforts? Because of the large amounts of trash being landfilled (which can cause groundwater pollution; among other things).

Now about your religious view. Don't worry, I'm not going to bash your religion but show me proof that God wrote the Bible because I can show you proof that we destroy the ecosphere. Can you say Love Canal? Or the Bald Eagle? Or the Kirtland's Warbler or the Golden-cheeked Warbler? Or the Snail Darter? Or wetlands, rainforests, coral reefs? Or the Carolina Parakeet? Or the Passenger Pigeon? For the record, I do believe in God but I don't think that an all-loving God would cause the pain and suffering (even extinction) of countless organisms just for our materialism or greed.

I believe intelligence should be used for good not for selfish pursuits.

Edited by deuterium, 31 December 2005 - 10:51 PM.

[Toan]

Come to think of it, yes, let's leave religion out of this thread. The bible was written before we could really analyze animal behavior and thought patterns, not to mention that since not everyone believes in Christianity it really holds no power in this debate. Let's stick to science.

Dai Grepher: That is what I am saying. Of course killing applies to ceasing the life of anything that lives. I am asking why I should respect a spider when I decide to spray it with Raid. Also, is fact that I do not want the spider in my house reason enough to kill it?

Why shouldn't you respect it? It's another creature, isn't it? I say don't kill it at all, but get a glass and a sheet of paper, and scoop it up and out of the house. No big deal there, and then you don't have a dead spider to deal with.

Dai Grepher: Most of those people are savages that have other “less admirable” traits. A lot of their "respect" is out of religion, like Hindus and cows.

Savages? Hardly - why would you call them that? And even if they were, it's not entirely impossible for them to have the right idea about one thing and wrong ideas about others. Every civilization has had those.

Dai Grepher: I read what you said and called you silly. How does that imply that I agree with you? If you were suggesting that people who do evils have no souls, then no, I disagree. If all evil people had no souls then there would be no reason for Hell besides keeping Satan there.

Ah... I should rephrase myself. If a soul breaks and is ripped apart, I think it's still there, but no longer functional. Heck, it might not have been functional in the first place if the individual can kill and not care.

Dai Grepher: ... What are we talking about?

If it's alright by you and her, I think I'll let Chik handle it. I understood what she meant, and I think she understood what I meant, but she could explain it better to you. She's good like that, heh.

Edited by Toan, 31 December 2005 - 09:34 PM.

[Fyxe]

What point did I miss? You suggested you have a firmer grasp on a "why" question than another person. You don't. Trust me.

No, no, no. If you had been paying ATTENTION, my use of the word 'why' was as a question, directed to ALL of us. I was merely trying to get everyone to look at human activity on the most basic level. There are reasons WHY we do things. Everything, including why we make choices. Like the dog choosing to bite the man who hits him or not. Cause and effect. And that is all I meant.

Is it a wild assumption that you're human?

I never said I wasn't, and what has that got to do with anything? Actually, it was the wild assumption that I was claiming greater knowledge, which I never did.

"The reason stuff happens is other stuff," while perfectly true, isn't something anybody doubted, OR what you said.

Actually, that was exactly what I was saying, because it WAS doubted. They were arguing that humans have some higher level of brainpower that meant that they 'reason' and that animals do not. I was trying to explain that 'reason' is simply a word we've given to the whole 'cause and effect' issue. They were arguing that it was somehow different, which doesn't seem to make sense to me.

You want to say you know more about HOW things happen, not WHY things happen.

What the hell. Is that it? Is that your problem? WHY is a word. Just because I used the damn word doesn't mean I have answers to deeper questions. I wasn't CLAIMING to. For heaven's sake, THIS is why you've missed the point. You're just being PEDANTIC.

Now, the fact is, while we can say we know what inputs result in what outputs for people and animals, we don't know jack about the mind.

I'm sure some neuroscientists would dissagree. But that's beside the point. There's no reason to believe that humans think and animals do not, THAT was the point I was trying to get across.

You didn't break a rule, you proved it. These aren't rules like forum rules, these are more like Gravity. Rule 2.1 dictates that nobody on the Internet has the answers, but most if not all will claim to at some point.

Once again, I was not claiming answers. I was trying to explain my point, and in doing so I happened to ASK the question why. 'Why' in this case covered physical reasons for actions, I am not getting into some theological discussion because it has no place here. I never was. Now please, drop the pedantic stuff and READ what I'm *actually* saying, not what you think I'm saying.

[Alakhriveion]

No, no, no. If you had been paying ATTENTION, my use of the word 'why' was as a question, directed to ALL of us. I was merely trying to get everyone to look at human activity on the most basic level. There are reasons WHY we do things. Everything, including why we make choices. Like the dog choosing to bite the man who hits him or not. Cause and effect. And that is all I meant.

Therefore implying you had a greater grasp on this stuff than other people. Like nobody would have gotten that we DON'T know this stuff if you hadn't helped. There is no reason to bring up something like this other than arrogance.

I never said I wasn't, and what has that got to do with anything? Actually, it was the wild assumption that I was claiming greater knowledge, which I never did.

"If it's too confusing, then I cannot help you. You are looking at it on a superficial level. If you get down to the very detail of WHY we make decisions, and what MAKES us decide to change, then no, we have as much free will as any creature on this planet." Your words. If that isn't asking and then answering a fundamental question... well, there no way to phrase it like I was going to. You answered your own unanswerable question. So you DID claim to know all about free will and 'why' and so forth. At least, you made definate statements about it.

Actually, that was exactly what I was saying, because it WAS doubted. They were arguing that humans have some higher level of brainpower that meant that they 'reason' and that animals do not. I was trying to explain that 'reason' is simply a word we've given to the whole 'cause and effect' issue.

It isn't, though. At least, it might not be. I can say for sure, though, that you don't know. Rule 2.1: If you REALLY had the answers, you wouldn't be on the internet.

What the hell. Is that it? Is that your problem? WHY is a word. Just because I used the damn word doesn't mean I have answers to deeper questions. I wasn't CLAIMING to. For heaven's sake, THIS is why you've missed the point.

No, not deeper, sorry if I said that. BIGGER. This is the kind of thing smarter people than us have been talking about longer than any of us have been alive, and you acted like you had a better grasp on it that someone here.

You're just being PEDANTIC.

Yes I am.

I'm sure some neuroscientists would dissagree.

No, not really. And even if you did know what you're talking about, argument from vague authority isn't a case.

But that's beside the point. There's no reason to believe that humans think and animals do not, THAT was the point I was trying to get across.

The fact we can talk to each other DOES seem to imply we're more thinkier than animals. But I don't really know much about animal intellegence.

Once again, I was not claiming answers. I was trying to explain my point, and in doing so I happened to ASK the question why. 'Why' in this case covered physical reasons for actions, I am not getting into some theological discussion because it has no place here. I never was. Now please, drop the pedantic stuff and READ what I'm *actually* saying, not what you think I'm saying.

Oh no. I don't care about that animals stuff. Like I said before, I'm not ashamed of being a pedant.

[Fyxe]

Hey, ever heard of an opinion, Alak?

Therefore implying you had a greater grasp on this stuff than other people. Like nobody would have gotten that we DON'T know this stuff if you hadn't helped.

Ricky said he didn't understand my point, and I was clarifying it. Is that arrogance?

You answered your own unanswerable question. So you DID claim to know all about free will and 'why' and so forth. At least, you made definate statements about it.

It's called an opinion. If you had actually read more than just one page or whatever you did before you jumped in here with your misplaced rant, then you'd see that I had already stated my thoughts on free will and I was just arguing my point. Last I checked, this was a forum for discussion.

No, not deeper, sorry if I said that. BIGGER. This is the kind of thing smarter people than us have been talking about longer than any of us have been alive, and you acted like you had a better grasp on it that someone here.

No I didn't. If you read that into my words, that's your own problem. I was simply stating my thoughts on the matter, and how it all adds up in MY mind.

Alak, sorry, but you're talking rubbish. And your pedantic ramblings are somewhat off-topic, right? Can you stick your nose in somewhere else, please? If the other members of the discussion think I was being arrogant, they can pick me up on it and we'll sort it out ourselves.

I don't really give a flying damn what you think, since you've stated yourself you don't care about the topic. You've basically just jumped in, accused me of some great pile of bollocks that is like a MILE off the mark, and you won't stop harassing me about it.

By the way, just so you know, animals do talk to each other. Duh. They just don't have a language *we* understand, because it's a complex mixture of body language, distinctive noises that are sometimes beyond our hearing, etc.

Now please, can you go find something worthy to complain about, preferably in a topic you're actually interested in involving yourself in properly? I'm actually trying to ask as nicely as I can, given that you're basically harassing me and making unfair and insulting comments about how you *think* I am acting.

Edited by Fyxe, 01 January 2006 - 10:52 PM.

[Alakhriveion]

Ricky said he didn't understand my point, and I was clarifying it. Is that arrogance?

Context doesn't matter. Your statement was arrogant.

It's called an opinion. If you had actually read more than just one page or whatever you did before you jumped in here with your misplaced rant, then you'd see that I had already stated my thoughts on free will and I was just arguing my point. Last I checked, this was a forum for discussion.

It is. But you made definate statements about something you've no buisness making them about. Now that happens a lot here but those statements happen to be completely unsupportable (as do statements to the opposite) and by page seven that's argument ad infinitum.

No I didn't. If you read that into my words, that's your own problem. I was simply stating my thoughts on the matter, and how it all adds up in MY mind.

Which is not argument.

Alak, sorry, but you're talking rubbish. And your pedantic ramblings are somewhat off-topic, right? Can you stick your nose in somewhere else, please? If the other members of the discussion think I was being arrogant, they can pick me up on it and we'll sort it out ourselves.

No, I can't. Seven pages of repeating yourself isn't something I'm going to respect the sanctity of.

I don't really give a flying damn what you think, since you've stated yourself you don't care about the topic. You've basically just jumped in, accused me of some great pile of bollocks that is like a MILE off the mark, and you won't stop harassing me about it.

Attacking your statements is not accusing you. Defending my statements is not harrasment.

By the way, just so you know, animals do talk to each other. Duh. They just don't have a language *we* understand, because it's a complex mixture of body language, distinctive noises that are sometimes beyond our hearing, etc.

Rock have that too. I'm serious, I seen one moving once and that's God's honest truth. You can't make such solid statements on these things!

Now please, can you go find something worthy to complain about, preferably in a topic you're actually interested in involving yourself in properly? I'm actually trying to ask as nicely as I can, given that you're basically harassing me and making unfair and insulting comments about how you *think* I am acting.

Calling me mean doesn't make your statements less ungrounded.

[Nevermind]

Alak, the difference is that rocks aren't living organisms. Don't take my word on this but I'm pretty sure that is why they are classed under 'mineral', rather than 'animal'.

I'm sorry, I feel like this bit of text I have added is you know....wasting space....almost as if it is...a...pointless comment....you get me...

[spunky-monkey]

If it's too confusing, then I cannot help you. You are looking at it on a superficial level. If you get down to the very detail of WHY we make decisions, and what MAKES us decide to change, then no, we have as much free will as any creature on this planet.

Ricky said he didn't understand my point, and I was clarifying it. Is that arrogance?

Arrogance or not, it doesn't matter. You say 'free will' is not about choices and that our choices were defined by our instincts or something. Your 'definition' on what exactly is choice and how it seperates us from the Animal Kingdom changed several times through this thread Fyxe. Since we both have our own ideas of what choice and 'reasoning' are, I suggest we stop talking about 'free will'.

Bottom-line is, people can change their personalities like a quiet, easy-going person can become horrible and short tempered overnight. Animals don't have minds like that at all, they run on impulses...sadly for them they can't betray their instincts and that's often why animals can do some remarkably stupid things and get themselves into trouble e.g. running around on a main road. With people getting into messy situations is often because they're not 'thinking clearly'.
Since animals get themselves struck up trees, jammed in pipes...I'm guessing it obviously means animals just don't think...

[deuterium]

Ricky, I have to disagree with you that other organisms don't think. What about humans who get stuck in pipes? Or some people trying to jump into a pool from off a house and who end up shattering their bones? People do stupid things too. Just because other organisms aren't 100% aware of what we do doesn't classify them as dumb. Also, other organisms can change their personalities. They can become more aggressive if hurt or treated badly. Though, it depends on the individual.

[spunky-monkey]

What about humans who get stuck in pipes? Or some people trying to jump into a pool from off a house and who end up shattering their bones?

General accidents and "Jackass" don't count.

For example a horse gets stuck a frozen lake or pitfall, emergency services arrive but the animal won't stay still in order for them to help it. Such incidents have allowed the animal (or people trying to save it) to perish...in that respect the animal is 'dumb'.

It's not a question of trust its just plain common sense - mind you if the animal had any sense it would know it can't get itself out of this mess and should remain calm so it could be rescued by others.

Like hunger, anger & pain, fear is an impulse...animals have no control over their impulses, humans on the other hand are not slaves to our own instincts.

[Nevermind]

Try and get a person to stay still when they've fallen into a frozen lake. Go on.

[deuterium]

RICKY, I would state that other organisms have more control over hunger than we do. Though, I'm not stating that we're weak but we have an artifical carrying capacity: agriculture. So, it is a bit easier on us (but that does not go without stating about money and hunger for our species). Other organisms have to hunt or forage for their food. Sometimes going for a few days without food. I don't think most humans could tolerate that but maybe I'm wrong. Also, if we more control over our emotions like anger or pain why do we have murder, crime, rape and etc?

[Fyxe]

I'm going to ignore Alak because he's being bloody rediculous.

Arrogance or not, it doesn't matter. You say 'free will' is not about choices and that our choices were defined by our instincts or something.

No, no, that was not what I was saying. It really wasn't. I'm not going to explain it again, I've done it to death.

Your 'definition' on what exactly is choice and how it seperates us from the Animal Kingdom changed several times through this thread Fyxe.

No it hasn't. I have just tried to explain it in varying ways because you have yet to understand what I'm trying to say. This is NOT arrogance, this is just a failure to communicate perfectly.

Since we both have our own ideas of what choice and 'reasoning' are, I suggest we stop talking about 'free will'.

We need to define those words to discuss them, however. And free will comes into that.

Bottom-line is, people can change their personalities like a quiet, easy-going person can become horrible and short tempered overnight.

Yes, to an extent, but my point is that they do not do it randomly. Something inititates that change, something in their life has *taught* them that a change will aid themselves. For instance, if they suffer a breakup, they may decide to change personality to do better in following relationships. And in my experience, *nobody* changes that much overnight anyway. Maybe on a surface level they do, but that is not a complete personality change. It's a learned thing.

Animals don't have minds like that at all, they run on impulses...

I'm arguing that it's impluse that causes a human to change personality too. No different from animals, it's just more complex.

sadly for them they can't betray their instincts and that's often why animals can do some remarkably stupid things and get themselves into trouble e.g. running around on a main road.

If they have not learned that a main road is dangerous, then why would they fear it? Besides, most wild animals know to get out of the way if a car is coming at them, so that's not the best example anyway. It's just like the issue with guns. Animals do not fear guns if they see them, because they do not understand what they are. This is the same with young children. They have to learn that they are dangerous before they start fearing them. That's an issue of intelligence, nothing to do with instinct.

With people getting into messy situations is often because they're not 'thinking clearly'.

In other words, they're relying on instinct rather than their learned experience, which can get them in trouble. No real difference.

Since animals get themselves struck up trees, jammed in pipes...I'm guessing it obviously means animals just don't think...

Ok, that's the dumbest arguement so far. Children get themselves stuck in tons of things, ditches, wells, pipes, whatever. Adults can too.

For example a horse gets stuck a frozen lake or pitfall, emergency services arrive but the animal won't stay still in order for them to help it. Such incidents have allowed the animal (or people trying to save it) to perish...in that respect the animal is 'dumb'.

Dude. If you fell into a pit and were rescued by a team of lions, would you stay still? The horse has not learned that the humans are trying to help it. That's not that it's not 'thinking', that's that it doesn't *know*.

It's not a question of trust its just plain common sense

'Common sense' is something defined by society, not by nature. If you were a horse and fell down a pit, you'd be scared by anything happening around you because it's such an unnatural situation for a horse to be in. For all he knows the humans are planning to kill it now that they've got it trapped.

humans on the other hand are not slaves to our own instincts.

Ok... Prove that they're not. Give us an example of a situation where a human is entirely unaffected by instinct. Oh, and animals can resist instinct too if they have *learnt* to, we have pointed this out already with the example of the dog biting the man that hits it.

It seems to me that in the very moment of thinking 'I'm going to resist that instinct', you're being affected by instinct. You wouldn't think that otherwise. You have simply been taught by society that you should not follow through with it.

It's not instinctual for dogs to sit when told.

[spunky-monkey]

If they have not learned that a main road is dangerous, then why would they fear it? Besides, most wild animals know to get out of the way if a car is coming at them, so that's not the best example anyway. It's just like the issue with guns. Animals do not fear guns if they see them, because they do not understand what they are. This is the same with young children. They have to learn that they are dangerous before they start fearing them.

I see what you mean, animals can't make the association with the shape of the gun and the threat it poses. Having said that fear is usually learned through experience and rarely knowledge.

Dude. If you fell into a pit and were rescued by a team of lions, would you stay still?

You just blew my argument right out of proportions.

Ok... Prove that they're not. Give us an example of a situation where a human is entirely unaffected by instinct.

Well there's suicide. It defies the instinct to live, the impulse to survive.

It's not instinctual for dogs to sit when told.

I'm not sure if that's the point I was looking for, it doesn't really prove it's 'thinking'...we need to find a better example.