Atheism

[Larry Gude]

I have faith that you will take issue with my logic.

No. Logic and reason based on experience is not faith.

I have found competing definitions that claim 'faith' is 'complete trust' and 'strong belief' so, there is room for debate. I have no strong belief in math but I do have complete 'faith' in math.

 

[Toxick]

Well, I'm trying to make the point that the goat is not a sentient being. Yes, reduction ad absurdum to make that point.

Do you really think animals are sentient?

I've always been taught that sentience is owning consciousness and perception. Since a goat, or a whale, or a dog has eyeballs, ears, mouths, and they move around seemingly directed by purpose, independent of direct manipulation - and they seem to possess the ability to comprehend and interact with their surrounding environment, and they possess a tendency to avoid dying when possible, then yeah. I really think animals are sentient.


Some of them.

Obviously things like jellyfish, and other similar mindless creatures are either not sentient or their sentience is negligible.




I would argue that your definition of sentience is closer to what I would call "intelligence".

 

[Larry Gude]

Obviously things like jellyfish, and other similar mindless creatures are either not sentient or their sentience is negligible.

I would argue that your definition of sentience is closer to what I would call "intelligence".

Jelly fish have been around a LOT longer than us. So, it becomes a matter of perspective. Same goes with intelligence. He's talking, and I think you are, in terms of human perspective which is what religion is; human. :shrug:

 

[Clem72]

I am not arguing sentience based on demonstrating what could be construed as feelings or self-protective acts. You are.

I don't think grass is sentient. I don't think dogs are sentient. I don't think flies are sentient. They all display self-protective acts, which could be considered self-awareness, but I don't think it is self-awareness.

I don't know about you, but if someone convinced me a pig or corn is sentient, it's not going to prevent me from eating them.

An argument I just thought of to support sentience is having different response to the same stimulus. If you poke 100 goats in the side with a stick, and all 100 turn around and nip at you then maybe that's an involuntary response. If 50 nip at you, 25 ignore you, 15 run away, and 10 start following you around begging for more pokes, that might be an argument for sentience.

 

[Toxick]

Jelly fish have been around a LOT longer than us. So, it becomes a matter of perspective.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, exactly. How does the endurance of a species affect what I said about sentience?
Trees have been around a lot longer than us as well. They are not sentient either.

I don't think this is a matter of perspective. I think it is based on what the definition of sentience is, and if a species fits the defined bill.

Same goes with intelligence. He's talking, and I think you are, in terms of human perspective which is what religion is; human. :shrug:

I'm only talking about the definition of sentience. And the only reason I'm talking about that is because he basically equated the idea that "animals are sentient" to "grass is sentient". Which I found to be a gross misrepresentation and dismissal of the idea being put forth.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm not sure what you're saying here, exactly. How does the endurance of a species affect what I said about sentience?
Trees have been around a lot longer than us as well. They are not sentient either. .

Yeah, they are. They are living things. They are sentient. Not as we commonly define it but you gotta keep in mind; they're not the ones that define all life as created by some man upstairs who watches us all day and all night, cares about us, yet condemns us to eternal hell fire if we don't love him as he defines it.

And jellyfish have created the means to destroy themselves and everything and everyone else and that, total destruction with only the chosen to survive, is a central theme of mans religions, not a jellyfishes.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm only talking about the definition of sentience. And the only reason I'm talking about that is because he basically equated the idea that "animals are sentient" to "grass is sentient". Which I found to be a gross misrepresentation and dismissal of the idea being put forth.

And I am talking about the core of the argument, that religion was how we explained everything when we had no clue. Over time more and more religious explanations are displaced by science or, at least, challenged with more likely reasons. To that end, we know a LOT more about grass along with everything else. Plants DO feel. Plants to do 'act' and they do so in ways far more testable, provable, than 100, 50 or even 5 years ago. We are basing everything on OUR view of how things work, a view that has evolved and continues to evolve. A Venus fly trap evolved to attracting and eating bugs. Plants evolved to get bees to work for their procreation. We used to hand it all to god and his magnificent plan but, as we learn more and more, we know that that plan has resulted in a failure rate of over 98%, all of it, the failures and the current success's, scientific realities of space and time.

Simply put, our view of sentience is man made, obviously. So are our views of the heavens and the earth. And they're evolving. Which is good because it's all we have.

 

[Larry Gude]

I don't know about you, but if someone convinced me a pig or corn is sentient, it's not going to prevent me from eating them. .

Yeah, and starvation isn't likely to stop you from eating the most sentient person you can think of if it comes down to it.

Your argument about the 100 goats is good and illustrative. It's also unnecessary. Sentience means to feel, not to reason. Goats feel, flies feel, molecules feel. The insistence to put it in human terms merely illustrates the man made nature of religion in the first place. I mean, we can KNOW that we don't know gods plan but we do KNOW our fellow creatures don't feel? Further, lower species Do reason on their own level. They;d not exist if they didn't or, more accurately, reasoned poorly or most accurately, got unlucky. Our closer relatives all died out for various reasons, many of them luck related, bad luck. We were, it seems, down to several 1,000 of us at our low point and then the weather improved.

 

[vraiblonde]

From Merriam-Webster:


Definition of sentient

1
: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>

2
: aware

3
: finely sensitive in perception or feeling



Plants and rocks are not sentient. Now go hug a tree and stop talking foolishness.

 

[PsyOps]

Or, as usual, do you miss mine? You are aware of India and their love of cows, their reverence for them? Or the history of monkeys in faith?

Again, if an animal lover runs over a mouse on a crowded highway, it's highly unlikely they will stop. If they run over a human, they are highly likely to stop, render aid, and call an ambulance. Please don't tell me animal lovers will call an ambulance for a squished mouse, rabbit, skunk, possum, racoon, etc... in the road.

 

[Toxick]

Yeah, they are. They are living things. They are sentient. Not as we commonly define it but you gotta keep in mind; they're not the ones that define all life as created by some man upstairs who watches us all day and all night, cares about us, yet condemns us to eternal hell fire if we don't love him as he defines it.

Talking to you is becoming increasingly exhausting.
So, Whatever dude.



Whatever.

Sentience = Life = Sapience. Run with that.

And jellyfish have created the means to destroy themselves and everything and everyone else and that, total destruction with only the chosen to survive, is a central theme of mans religions, not a jellyfishes.

Alrighty then.

 

[PsyOps]

From Merriam-Webster:


Definition of sentient

1
: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions <sentient beings>

2
: aware

3
: finely sensitive in perception or feeling



Plants and rocks are not sentient. Now go hug a tree and stop talking foolishness.

As I understand what's going on here is, sentient is being used to state the ability to reason with your surrounding in an intelligent way; primarily through complex communication. While animals may be conscious of their environment and can discern certain things like danger and who belongs to their pack or clan, I'm not convinced animals actually FEEL love or compassion or the ability to reason. So, we apply those human emotions to what we see them doing; mostly, I think, because it humanizes animals.

 

[Wishbone]

I'm not convinced animals actually FEEL love

Obviously you've never opened the treat jar.

 

[kwillia]

As I understand what's going on here is, sentient is being used to state the ability to reason with your surrounding in an intelligent way; primarily through complex communication. While animals may be conscious of their environment and can discern certain things like danger and who belongs to their pack or clan, I'm not convinced animals actually FEEL love or compassion or the ability to reason. So, we apply those human emotions to what we see them doing; mostly, I think, because it humanizes animals.

See.. this is the meaty meat meat I was waiting for... dolphins, elephants and great apes certainly do.

There are many studies that have been able to discern actual abstract thinking, tool use, culture, fission-fusion social structure including tracking alliances and other cooperative behavior, acoustic vocalizations, foraging methods, etc.

remember Koko the sign language commuicating gorilla?

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-01-10/news/mn-9038_1_pet-kitten

Koko, whose favorite picture book stories include "The Three Little Kittens" and "Puss 'n' Boots," asked for a kitten for a Christmas present a year ago, researchers said.

"But we gave her a life-like stuffed animal and she was terribly upset," said Ron Cohn, a biologist with the foundation. Koko refused to play with it and kept signing "sad."

So on Koko's birthday last July, she was allowed to choose a kitten from among several in a litter. She named the gray-and-white kitten "All Ball" as a joke, Cohn said. "The cat was a Manx and looked like a ball. Koko likes to rhyme words in sign language."

***flash forward (there is more into in the article for those who care to read it)


In mid-December, All Ball wandered onto the highway near the seven-acre research facility and was run over.

"When we told Koko, she acted like she didn't hear us for about 10 minutes," Cohn said. "Then she started whimpering--a distinct hooting sound that gorillas make when they are sad. We all started crying together."

Koko then said, "Sleep. Cat." by folding her hands and placing them at the side of her head, Cohn said.

 

[Larry Gude]

Obviously you've never opened the treat jar.

 

[Toxick]

I'm not convinced animals actually FEEL love or compassion or the ability to reason.

I agree that love and compassion are human constructs, and therefore animals are not inclined or constrained to feel compassion or love the way people do. Especially animals that are not tribal or pack-oriented. The animals who are paired with people (cats, dogs) behave compassionately (there are videos of dogs saving the lives of other dogs, cats, humans, etc.), although actual compassion may be the product of our own imagination. I think that on some rudimentary level they may even care for their human counterparts and co-pets, but I don't think they feel these things the way a human would. They are not human, and projecting complex emotions like love and compassion on them is strictly for our own benefit.

That said, I have physically seen animals reason things out. I have, on more than one occasion, sat there and watched my cat (well - my ex-cat, now my ex's cat) approach a problem and figure out a way to solve it. Obviously, they cannot quickly and ably solve sophisticated puzzles the way that (some) humans do, but they can and do work things out using their limited reasoning skills. Pigs and dolphins, for instance, understand mirrors and actually use them to their advantage (I heard that humans, pigs and dolphins are the only animals who comprehend mirrors and what mirrors do, although I'm not sure about this - I think dogs have a tenuous grasp of them, although this grasp comes and goes randomly). And we've all seen the videos of monkeys using sticks with honey on the end to dig bugs out of nooks and crannies in rocks.

I don't think we're going to need to share dominion of the earth with any of these creatures any time soon, however we are certainly not alone when it comes to the ability to feel and think - although we're ahead by leaps and bounds. But I cannot think of them as anything but sentient.

 

[kwillia]

I agree that love and compassion are human constructs, and therefore animals are not inclined or constrained to feel compassion or love the way people do. Especially animals that are not tribal or pack-oriented. The animals who are paired with people (cats, dogs) behave compassionately (there are videos of dogs saving the lives of other dogs, cats, humans, etc.), although actual compassion may be the product of our own imagination. I think that on some rudimentary level they may even care for their human counterparts and co-pets, but I don't think they feel these things the way a human would. They are not human, and projecting complex emotions like love and compassion on them is strictly for our own benefit.

That said, I have physically seen animals reason things out. I have, on more than one occasion, sat there and watched my cat (well - my ex-cat, now my ex's cat) approach a problem and figure out a way to solve it. Obviously, they cannot quickly and ably solve sophisticated puzzles the way that (some) humans do, but they can and do work things out using their limited reasoning skills. Pigs and dolphins, for instance, understand mirrors and actually use them to their advantage (I heard that humans, pigs and dolphins are the only animals who comprehend mirrors and what mirrors do, although I'm not sure about this - I think dogs have a tenuous grasp of them, although this grasp comes and goes randomly). And we've all seen the videos of monkeys using sticks with honey on the end to dig bugs out of nooks and crannies in rocks.

I don't think we're going to need to share dominion of the earth with any of these creatures any time soon, however we are certainly not alone when it comes to the ability to feel and think - although we're ahead by leaps and bounds. But I cannot think of them as anything but sentient.

Yay... and here comes part two of what I have been waiting for... for those who cannot comprehend looking at it from observations of other species then please educate yourself on what happens to the human infants and those in early youth without the cognitive stimulation required to build the neurons necessary for what we consider human behaviors. The effects of deprivation are often lead to descriptions of "wild children" and "animalistic"... the damage is permanent in many ways even when massive amounts of time and effort are put into attempts at 'reversal' of damage...

I ask you, does that make them any less human?

 

[mAlice]

Talking to you is becoming increasingly exhausting.

So glad it's not just me.

 

[vraiblonde]

As I understand what's going on here is, sentient is being used to state the ability to reason with your surrounding in an intelligent way; primarily through complex communication. While animals may be conscious of their environment and can discern certain things like danger and who belongs to their pack or clan, I'm not convinced animals actually FEEL love or compassion or the ability to reason. So, we apply those human emotions to what we see them doing; mostly, I think, because it humanizes animals.

I am a strong anti animal-humanizer. I am well aware that Apollo is a dog and not a human, and I do not attribute human characteristics to him. But he does feel, if not love, at least strong affection. He can problem-solve, which is a basic form of reason. He feels remorse - I've seen that a number of times - and he shows protectiveness.

And Apollo isn't even particularly bright.

To say that animals aren't sentient is demonstrably untrue.

 

[Merlin99]

I was very much like this before I became a Belieber.

It irritated me no end that there are groups and cliques and forums - and back in the lazy hazy days of Usenet, a newsgroup hierarchy - dedicated to atheism. I never could understand why those people gathered together an identified themselves by what they don't believe. I never felt the urge to go into a bar with a group of non-unicorn-believing friends, and chat the night away about how we are logical intellectual powerhouses because we don't believe in unicorns, and how stupid people simply believe in unicorns, because they need a crutch.

I never felt the need to inject myself into conversations of believers and point out their logical fallacies and generally be a atheist flavored douche-bag.


Much like I don't now feel the need to tell atheists they're going to hell, or demand proof that God doesn't exist.




The simple fact is that one's belief, or lack thereof, is an extremely personal thing (to most people). It is often closer to their heart than their very own spouses, and in some cases, their children. And if anyone thinks that showing up and poking at that belief with a rhetorical stick is going to illicit anything but a hostile response is absolutely oblivious to human nature, or willfully ignorant of it.

The very existence of a powerful unifying force on one side compels a reaction from the group that doesn't belong to them. Much the way we have anthropomorphic global warming extremist, there's a reactionary force saying they're wrong and it's just nature taking its course.