Understanding Atheism

Torog

Howdy Y'all,

I have a couple of questions for y'all to ponder and reply to as you see fit.

Is homo-sapiens a non-essential species ?


If you answer Yes to the above question,then I have another question.

Why would Nature evolve plants specifically to benefit a non-essential species ?

Have a good one ...

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
God Bless Those Who Choose To Protect Our Freedom !

halffoot

I'm not sure what context you meant this to be taken in, but if you mean to the ecosystem, no, I wouldn't say we're essential, quite the opposite, we're incredibly detrimental to the ecosystem.

From an evolutionary standpoint there are no 'essential' species. Some species are essential to each other, like symbiotes, or some species rely on others, like parasites(our removal from the ecosystem might cause some of those to go extinct), but to my knowledge there aren't any species you could remove and cause everything to die or fall apart in the ecology.

Which sort of leads into my next answer that there aren't any plants that specifically benefit our species(minus ones we've engineered). The plants evolved along their own paths and we learned to use them. Like for for example, corn was just a plant until someone thought to eat it. Now, over years of selective breeding you can get corn that provides more nutrition or grains, but thats your intervention, not the corns natural growth.

If that didn't help clarify, please specify the question or maybe provide an example of what you mean.

Torog

Howdy halffoot,

Well I figured that you would say that humans are detrimental to Nature,we can be stewards of Nature and make Nature work better.

Let's take cannabis as an example,if a herbivore consumes psychoactive cannabis,it becomes more vulnerable to attack by carnivores and Nature needs herbivores to perpetuate the ecosystem. Cannabis mostly only benefits humans,a loving God would create such a plant for our use and I believe that there's a cure to be found for every human disease,in Nature..we just have to find them. Every animal has it's role,but one role that they don't fill and can't fill,is the role of conserving Nature in the way that humans can.

Have a good one ...

__________________
God Bless Those Who Choose To Protect Our Freedom !

halffoot

I was afraid you would say something like that...

Ok, here goes. Humanity are stewards of nature like Hitler was steward of the Jews. That whole thing about cannabis and the animal kingdom is false, since cannabis isn't psychoactive unless you heat it, and I've never seen an animal that could smoke anything, or cook anything for that matter. To put it simply, cannabis just works, because it does. It contains cannabinoids and we also have cannabinoid receptors in our brains, so when we enhale the smoke and introduce the delta9THC into our brains, in binds to those receptors and causes the 'high' as well as other effects to the nervous system.

Ok, now onto our 'stewardship'. We are destroying the environment. Really. Species are dying off right now at a monumental rate. You are right about there probably being a 'cure for every disease in nature' but we wont find most of those cures because a lot of them exist in the rain forest, which we are hacking down, and in the coral reefs, which are shriveling up and dieing due to rising ocean temperatures. We're the kind of steward that, if we died, tomorrow the animal kingdom would hold a big parade and all the little rabbits would sing 'ding dong, the witch is dead!'.


Thats not really an exaggeration either. That was actually referenced in a sci-fi channel special they held yesterday about how the world could end. Not that I'm saying the sci-fi channel isn't a slightly dubious source of information, but most of their information is credible(sometimes just a little exaggerated, like the ideas they had of robots enslaving humanity. As someone working with computers and AI, I would say that thats a long way off).

undertheice

would the world get along swimmingly without us? of course it would. the life of the planet would have taken a totally different course without our influence, but it would all be here just the same. this anthropocentric notion that humanity is the custodian of the earth is just another way of avoiding the realization that we are just beasts who happened to develop over sized brains to cope with our fragile frames.

more anthropocentric foolishness. your faith would seem to lead you to discount the possibilities of random chance and the concept that mankind itself might have evolved to make use of some compounds. roses were not put here for us to enjoy, weed was not put here for us to smoke, crabgrass was not put here to give us something to cuss about on sunday afternoons. these critters all have lives of their own that have nothing to do with a bunch of hairless apes.

there are few general rules when it comes to the individuals involved, but i stand by my statement as it concerns the institutions of religion. two of my dearest friends are fundamentalists and, though we will argue those topics from time to time, at the end of the day we just smoke another bowl and agree to disagree. that doesn't change the fact that religions are aggressively territorial institutions whose purpose is to expand their sphere of influence in order to control a wider audience. that control consists of enforcing its own set of god-given rules. a religion may be made up of individuals, but at some point the ideology takes control and the few at the top of the pyramid gain the power.

thanks i can be such an ignoramus when it comes to these newfangled computer thingies.

__________________
I know that two and two make four - and should be glad to prove it too if I could - though I must say if by any sort of process I could convert two and two into five it would give me much greater pleasure.

tokinGLX

there have been plenty of statements in this thread i could have replied to(i do love religion threads), but i have to start with this one.

why, oh why, would you ever think such a thing?

cannabinoid receptors are present in the bodies of many animals, and while we are the only species that smokes the dried buds of cannabis, we are not the only one who enjoys it when they can find it.

humans can feel the psychoactive effects from unheated cannabis when eaten, they would just have to eat a lot of it, as a majority of the thc would not be broken down by our digestive system. after years of evolving, we can no longer digest cellulose. this is why most of the thc would simply go in, and pass right out of us.

however, many animals(primarily the herbivores) can actively digest cellulose, and thus, would get very high if they happen across a plant or crop in the open and munch some buds.

halffoot

Thanks tokin! At the end of the day, I'm an engineer and a programmer, not a chemist, so my knowledge of such things is rather limited. I'd looked for an answer to that particular question(why cant you get high by eating pot) several times, glad to finally have an answer.

I maintain my main point from above though, and also contend that if eating cannabis in nature is detrimental to an animals survival, animals wont eat that plant. Animals tend to be smart enough to avoid things that are toxic, or else they die and don't leave offspring, and their smarter brothers and sisters perpetuate the species.

Torog

Howdy Y'all,

Thanx for yer replies !

Halffoot claims: "Ok, here goes. Humanity are stewards of nature like Hitler was steward of the Jews. "

First off,I think that it's in poor taste to bring hitler into this debate,secondly,humans can be very good stewards of the Earth when they choose to do so.

Here in Texas,we have a very pro-active conservation program that utilizes common sense approaches,unlike the conservation programs that left-leaners support.

TokinGLX claims: "however, many animals(primarily the herbivores) can actively digest cellulose, and thus, would get very high if they happen across a plant or crop in the open and munch some buds. "

Don't ya kinda prove my point that if herbivores ingest cannabis,that they are more susecptable to attack by predators ?

Which leads me to ask another question:

Why would Nature evolve animals to experience joy ?

Undertheice claims:

"more anthropocentric foolishness. your faith would seem to lead you to discount the possibilities of random chance and the concept that mankind itself might have evolved to make use of some compounds. roses were not put here for us to enjoy, weed was not put here for us to smoke, crabgrass was not put here to give us something to cuss about on sunday afternoons. these critters all have lives of their own that have nothing to do with a bunch of hairless apes."

I don't discount the possibilities of random chance or evolution,in fact-I believe that God designed Nature to embrace such..it's all a part of God's Plan.

Sadly,it seems that you believe that humans are no better than apes..you may as well tell a child: "Don't bother trying to better yer self or do any good for the world and yer fellow Man..because yer no better than the chimps at the zoo..".

My question now becomes: How do you discount the supernatural ?

Have a good one ...

__________________
God Bless Those Who Choose To Protect Our Freedom !

tokinGLX

your point was not that it would make them more viable prey for the predators, it was that cannabis only benefits humans, which is a false statement.

why would nature evolve only humans to experience joy? why should humans be the only living creatures on the planet that get satisfaction out of their environment? isnt that a little conceited? and why ask us why nature would evolve animals to experience joy when you can ask yourself why god would allow animals to experience joy. arent they pretty much the same reason? er wait, thats right, you christians really only value human life as being anything special.

bodily response to pleasurable activities was evolved into our(and animals') bodies because some of those peasurable activities are key to a healthy survival(of the unit, and of the species).
the brains and workings of an animals body are not much different than our own. certain stimulii trigger chemical reactions. it is the brains job to decide whether to reward(with pleasure/joy) or punish(with any level of pain) the bodies decision to engage that stimulus.

undertheice

though i'm non expert on the subject, it seems that might be an effective tool in the struggle for the plant's survival. if the animals that enjoyed munching on it became easier prey, then their numbers would decline through predation. less munchers, more weed. more weed, the species has a better chance of survival. makes sense to me, but then i'm just a dumb stoner.

i question whether an animal with a more limited mental capacity would consider a good buzz enjoyable. the altered perception and disorientation might be perceived more as a hazard than an enjoyable experience.

are we already at that point in the program where religion claims to have cornered the market on morality? just because we can realize that we really are nothing more than animals doesn't mean that our actions have no merit. quite the contrary, our deeds now have even more meaning because they are ours alone and not merely a genuflection to some invisible man in the sky. our joy in gaining knowledge, in helping others and in advancing ourselves and our loved ones does not suddenly cease once religion is taken out of the picture. once the carrot and stick of religion are removed the responsibility is ours alone and there are no longer any excuses for our evil deeds.

that's a loaded question and nearly impossible to answer without defining the term. much of what is considered supernatural merely hasn't been explained yet, the list of things we don't understand is infinite.

just because an atheist does not believe in god doesn't mean that he can't believe that things exist outside of his experience or knowledge. becoming an atheist is as much a matter of faith as any religious conversion. those that claim atheism have made a choice, for their own personal reasons, and their belief is no more provable than yours. that decision can be just as personal and meaningful as the most devout christian's faith. anyone that tells you they know that god doesn't exist is only deluding them self.

__________________
I know that two and two make four - and should be glad to prove it too if I could - though I must say if by any sort of process I could convert two and two into five it would give me much greater pleasure.

halffoot

Actually, anyone who says they know god doesn't exist is an atheist. Anyone who says the subject is unprovable is an agnostic. Anyone who says its unprovable, but I choose to believe there isn't a god, is an agnostic atheist, like me(god I love wikipedia). My girlfriend is the other end of the agnostic spectrum from me, she's an agnostic theist, which means she believes in the Christian god, but doesn't associate herself which any denomination and accepts that its entirely possible that he doesn't exist as well.

Not that its relevant, but I could really give two shits who I offend when I express myself. The above quoted section was a simile, meant to establish my point that human beings are not stewards of the environment, we're destroying it. Current human culture is incapable of being a good steward to their environment(no matter what you're doing down in Texas, this is a global issue), we pollute to much, take up too much room, and are just generally being uncaring dicks to our environment. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for humanity, but we need to reduce our ecological footprint in a big way before its too late. As you pointed out above, many cures to human diseases present and future exist in nature, but we are destroying the 2 greatest centers of biodiversity on our planet, the rainforest and the coral reefs. We continue to cut down the rain forest even though we know its going to bite us in the ass, and global warming(whether we caused it or not) is killing the coral reefs, which require very specific temperatures to survive. Now, the environment is flexible, but its meant to work slowly, developing to fit new conditions over many many generations, and in the past hundred years, the aftermath of the industrial revolution has skyrocketed our impact on the environment to catastrophic levels. I've become a bit tangential here though, so suffice it to say, absolutely not, we are not 'stewards' of the environment. No no no no no no no. Not, false, erroneous, invalid, untrue.

If you'd like to take that train of thought further though, I think we should do so in a different thread, as this one is supposed to be about religion(or the lack thereof), and I'd really hate to see it get(further) off that track on this issue.

Also, as I explained above, animals avoid plants in nature which they know to be harmful or dangerous. If some herbivores died from eating cannabis, the herbivores who avoided the funky smelling plant would gain a survival advantage, and eventually the behavior becomes ingrained in the species. Its the same explination for how deer instinctively avoid wolves, the ones who avoid them live, the ones who don't die and don't reproduce.

As for joy(which, for the purpose of this conversation, I will interpret as emotion in general), joy and all emotion are a function of the limbic system in our brain, and its interactions with our other systems. I'm not really capable of giving a full explination for the system and how it evolved here, but as usual, wikipedia helps out.

"The limbic system is embryologically older than other parts of the brain. It developed to manage 'fight' or 'flight' chemicals and is an evolutionary necessity for reptiles as well as humans. Recent studies of the limbic system of tetrapods have challenged some long-held tenets of forebrain evolution. The common ancestors of reptiles and mammals had a well-developed limbic system in which the basic subdivisions and connections of the amygdalar nuclei were established."

Its important to remember in this discussion that genetically, we are astonishingly similar to chimps, though, as any programmer will tell you, small variations in the code can have enormous effect on the final product.

Trying to do good in the world and better yourself isn't something we do because of what species we are, we do it because of our culture and our values(and yes, as ice said, atheist have values too). You dont go out there and say 'Today I am going to do good in my community, for I am a human being, not an ape'. Besides which, you seem to be suggesting that chimps are such a dramatically lower life form, when if reality, they are extremely similar to us a few thousand years back. They have all the precursors to our civilization, simple language, group dynamics, even tool building(some chimps have been obseved fashioning slim sticks into probes they use to dig ants out of deep tunnels). The only difference is in our complexity and our more developed neo-cortex, which is where our language and society gain their complexity and we gain our inventive edge.
Give them a few more millenia of selective breeding and the right set of opportunities, and a 'Planet of the Apes' scenario isn't so far fetched.

I'm so glad you asked. I actually wrote my final research paper project on this senior year in high school. Basically, my explination can be extrapolated from these two sources, one of them is rather long, but its the better of the two, and they're really quite interesting.

Wired 7.11: This Is Your Brain on God

BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - God on the Brain

Basically, how I interpret those findings is that religion evolved as a trait in humans, and everything from modern religion to UFO sightings can be explained by irregular activity in the temporal lobes or the electromagnetic fields that effect them. This is what I meant in an earlier debate Torog, when I suggested that Muhammad may have had Temporal Lobe Epilepsy.

I also believe, as ice does, that many things we label supernatural today, are just the natural forces that we don't understand yet. A few thousand years ago, people thought lightening was caused by angry gods throwing magic metal spears at the earth, until they found out about the true forces causing the phenomena. Who knows what we'll understand tomorrow.