Welcome to Gaia! ::

Emotions != instinct. Things such as mercy, love, and self-sacrifice are, if anything, contrary to all the instinct that evolution has programmed into us.

Mercy and love aren't against what evolution has programmed and self-sacrifice isn't an emotion.



I didn't say we weren't the best, I just said we weren't THAT much better than every other animal.



I was just having a micro-rant about how of course we would name ourselves the smart humans, what was your point in saying that there aren't any other species of hominids left?



So? I didn't say apes were on the same playing feild as humans, I just said they were smarter than we give them credit for.




I honestly don't know what you're talking about here. Love doesn't require abstract thought.




Proof that I think apes are intelligent enough to be given more credit than we're giving them?

I think you misinterpreted what I was saying.



Hate to break it to you, but emotions don't require abstract thought.

When I get angry and punch a wall and end up hurting my hand, I'm using a too little abstract thought if you ask me.

Defintion of emotion:

1. an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness.
2. any of the feelings of joy, sorrow, fear, hate, love, etc.
3. any strong agitation of the feelings actuated by experiencing love, hate, fear, etc., and usually accompanied by certain physiological changes, as increased heartbeat or respiration, and often overt manifestation, as crying or shaking.
4. an instance of this.
5. something that causes such a reaction: the powerful emotion of a great symphony.


That does not require abstract thought.

Sorry for being unclear, I don't mean romantic love.

I mean platonic love. I love my parents, I love my friends, etc.

Yes, romantic love requires abstract thought. But, that doesn't mean apes can't love.

If you see what I'm getting at.

I do believe in freedom of religion but...

Scientology was founded by a science fiction writer, who is quoted as saying that you could make a lot of money off of a religion.

The point is that Scientology's legal status is that it's a business, and it shouldn't really be equated with science or most other religions.

Wouldn't it be safe to say that it's merely attachment for the sake of survival? Parents and children and friends don't need to love each other in order to survive (stay sane, probably, but to survive, no). Apes (or other group animals like them) need to function cooperatively in order to ensure their survival. If a mother doesn't become attached to her offspring she won't want to protect it, and it'll die, hence cutting short that line of genetic information. Since humans were made to be with God and to be like God, and animals were made only to continue their genetic information, it isn't necessary to survival for humans to love (yes, if no parent loved their child and took care of it, the human race would quickly die out- but we are first called to worship and serve God, and then to love).

Scientology was made a religion when dianetics was turned down by, well, Just about every medical authority out there.

How come ppl worship science? saying "I don't believe in God, I believe in science and ONLY science!"?

No one was saying anyone in this discussion worship science, so that comment seems a bit pointless and random to me. I think Captain's point is that Scientology isn't really a religion at all.

Generally, people who don't believe in a god like to use science to explain the universe to them. I wouldn't say they worship is, but it is why they believe certain thigns about our world. I think that since God created out world, science is useful because it helps us better understand the world he made for us. I think people who think that science disproves God are generally weak faithed and don't know enough about God, science or either.