Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Animals have as much free-will as humans have (when hungry, they want food; etc.).
Of course, humans are:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If We All Became Atheists?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
Of course, humans are:
PureX
Veteran Member
Meaning rats are not superstitious. They only appear that way to superstitious humans when rats are confronted with a change in their routine and they become confused and hesitant.Meaning rats are more evidenced based than humans?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Only humans believe in things which have no evidence.
Same here. When my wife disallows non-veg. food due to religious reasons, I become angry (change in routine).
I don't know what this means. My guess it indicates your disdain for science because the religious dogma that you adopted isn't consistent with facts. Of course you will have an emotional reaction to reality. I'm sure it's unsettling and scary.
Ironic from a person who believes implausible myths are true, and states beliefs as if knowledge.
Facts are what they are, and science is an objective set of results about how things are in reality. We humans are part of the animal kingdom, and we did evolve. Your religious dogma was created well before the age of reason and science, and you had the bad luck of being indoctrinated into this tradition of belief. Now you are trapped by your own fear of seeing beyond this illusion.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
TM, I see it this way. We are very conscious of dangers, same with animals. Sense of personal, familial and social safety. Every strange sound, every strange shadow, every strange action, puts us on guard. Perhaps that is what researchers may have observed.
We Never Know
No Slack
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
In a way, yes, and it forms the psychological basis for superstition through the type 2 cognition error: the false positive.
The classic easy-to-get example being hearing a sound in the bushes. Is it just the wind? Or is it a dangerous predator sneaking up on you?
Natural selection favored those who just assumed it was a dangerous predator. They ran (and survived). Those who were more prone to "investigating" before making the assumption, became lunch if it indeed turned out to be a dangerous predator.
If you assume it is a predator and run while it was just the wind, then you just committed a type 2 cognition error: the false positive.
This proneness to false positives manifests in many different ways. Like for example assuming random correlations to being causal connections.
This is what happened in the infamous pigeon experiment. A machine drops bits of food at random times. A random correlation might have been that it dropped food right after the pigeon flapped its wings. It mistakenly assumes there was a causal link between flapping wings and receiving food. So it starts flapping its wings like a maniac, thinking it will result in food.
The false positive is a small seed in our collective psychological profiles which unravels in rather elaborate magical thinking and superstitious behavior.
Why do you believe that?
Then the explanation would be just, nature did it by chance, as it is now for many atheists.
They have not been demonstrated.
If humans are animals, why do you say they are not in animal level?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
99% similarity between human and chimp DNA. The same building blocks of A’s, T’s, G’s, and C’s.
Out of 3.3 billion of them in human DNA, we differ with chimps by 15,000 and with dogs 20,000.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No.
They have. Willful ignorance is not an excuse.
Because it is as stupid as saying "humans are mammals so they are at mammal level".
The problem is that you are engaging in a fallacy of ignoring the double meaning of the word "animal".
In colloquial language, "animal" refers to all animals except humans, to distinguish homo sapiens from the rest of the animal kingdom.
In biology, there is no such distinction. We are all animals. Biologically, anatomically, etc.
What you are doing is just disingenuous anti-science bullocks.
Humans are animals just like humans are mammals. Deal with it.
This is a matter of fact, not a matter of mere opinion.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Insane amounts of independently verifiable evidence.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Evolution. 'Those who ran survived'. Running away from danger is a wise trait. Then we can look back and see if it was danger or only our fear.
Sometimes the negative proves it. Is there an elephant in your cupboard?
Each animal is good for its own level. Even cheetahs have survived (where not hunted), though they do not hunt in large packs. All other predators are stronger than them, lions, tigers, leopards, hyenas. Even puny Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) survived to be an adult. She was 60 pounds, 3 and a half feet tall. Died probably because of a fall from a tree at least a 40 feet tall, where she would nest at night, damaging her pelvis and ribs.
X-rays suggest ironic end for famous human ancestor Lucy
The "Lucy" skeleton has reshaped our understanding of human evolution, but no one has ever been able to explain how she died -- until now.
www.pbs.org
Last edited:
Because that is what the facts and data shows. It is what experts in a variety of sciences report. And every science that does work investigating how the univese works is consistent with evolution.
What alternative is there? None. What creationists claim, with their obsolete and flawed interpretation of Genesis, is nonsense and completely inconsistent with facts and observations.
Don't you accept that humans evolved? If not, who told you otherwise, and why did you believe them?
Last edited:
Having same building blocks doesn't mean the built things are related.99% similarity between human and chimp DNA. The same building blocks of A’s, T’s, G’s, and C’s.
Out of 3.3 billion of them in human DNA, we differ with chimps by 15,000 and with dogs 20,000.
Please give one example of such evidence.
You could as well say, humans are tables, because that is how we have decided. Sorry, I can't accept such modern definitions.
Interesting. I have not seen such a data or facts.
I think that is ridiculous claim.
I don't think we have any real evidence for that. On the contrary, all that we know, indicates the opposite, humans and animals are degenerating, becoming less than what they were once. Examples of this are all the mutations that show DNA is disintegrating slowly and also all other atrophies.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
DNA
No.
So in your opinion, humans aren't mammals?
We don't give live birth? We don't have hair on our bodies? We don't have mammary glands?
How about vertebrates? Are humans vertebrates? Do we have a spine?
Heyo
Veteran Member
Modern? Have you been in hibernation for 400 years?
Systema Naturae was published in 1735. Since then, every educated person knew that humans are animals.