Wicca, LDS, Scientology, and "mainstream" Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-12-2013, 06:32 PM
RE: Wicca, LDS, Scientology, and "mainstream" Christianity
(29-12-2013 08:48 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(29-12-2013 08:31 PM)Alla Wrote:  OK. How does it make me spiritual?

It's what the word means. Spiritual means believing in spirits, souls, or other non-physical things. It doesn't mean anything else. You're over defining the term.

It doesn't mean "being good". It doesn't mean "eating pizza". It doesn't mean "can fly and shoot lasers out of your eyes". It means "believing in spirits, souls, and other spiritual things".

No laser-shooting eyes?? Dang. Sad

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r...-w_49ttW6a]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 01:32 PM
RE: Wicca, LDS, Scientology, and "mainstream" Christianity
@Kestrel: Let me try clear it up a little. Let me use purpose to be the distinguishing element between anthropomorphise and altruism. When trying to describe the GENUINE actions of an animal acting selflessly, I'd use altruism. When manufacturing human characteristics in an animal I'd use anthropomorphise. Very similar but there is a slight difference.

How do I understand the motives of animals? Well quite simply actually. I use my intelligence to observe the actions and hypothesise an outcome. Since we are also animals I'm not far off in applying simple human logic and reason to understand a lesser creature. One would think this to be a position of advantage. I can empirically prove this when the animal acts in the way I originally hypothesised. Isn't this how science works?

Also understanding is a matter of subjectivity.

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 05:08 PM
RE: Wicca, LDS, Scientology, and "mainstream" Christianity
BlackMason Wrote:I can empirically prove this when the animal acts in the way I originally hypothesised.
Putting good natured ribbing aside, for the moment.

You, nor anyone else, can empirically prove to know what the elks motive was in the link Chas provided.
The documentation of seemingly exhibited "altruism" in the animal kingdom are anomalies at best.

In the link Chas provides, the video is narrated by the researcher.
Here is a quote from the video by that same researcher, as he witness' another elk join the first:
"All my textbook biology fails me. When it's survival of the fittest, where's the room for this compassion?"
WTF??
In one sentence he swipes clean the desk of his intellect of all papers, books, experiences as a scientist and replaces it with drooling emotion.
Furthermore, he goes on to unequivocally pronounce that the elks intention is to defend the injured companion!!
What scientist does that? Drooling

Not a single word of thought that perhaps the elk in question was following, (and here's a word that's too long in coming within this conversation), instinct.
Taking the fact that the fight or flight instinct drives almost all animals, it is reasonable to posit that fight or flight came into play here. It is far more plausible and palatable that the uninjured elk got its wires crossed and upon witnessing the plight of the injured elk processed that it was the one under attack, not having a sense of "self". It very well may have vicariously told itself that it must defend itself.
A far more reasonable conclusion, than just some emotional Walt Disney explanation.

Of course, let us not forget the remainder of the elk herd from which this injured elk most assuredly traveled. (Number unknown.)
Are the other elk, who did not make an appearance, now all "selfish"? Do they all have a lack of "compassion"?
It just don't work. Undecided

It is an interesting observation that, the atheist will give no quarter, (and rightly so, IMO), to the theist who will skip over the more plausible or realistic explanations of how the theist claims to arrive at a given conclusion, yet this discussion shows the atheist is not immune to emotional projection, in order to see what they want to see as well.

BlackMason Wrote:...Since we are also animals I'm not far off in applying simple human logic and reason to understand a lesser creature. One would think this to be a position of advantage
emphasis mine

So where is your boundary for that parameter? Does it apply to mammals only? Or does it include, fish, birds, insects, bacteria?

"If you're going my way, I'll go with you."- Jim Croce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: