Why atheism ... whence religion?

[Trolldor]

My argument is that human emotions are intrinsically different to those felt by animals.

Which is trite nonsense. You have nothing to base that on, while there is plenty of evidence out there suggesting emotions are as real to animals as they are to us. Koko the Gorilla being the foremost example.

[Trolldor]

Though I should point out there is evidence to suggest that some animals are incapable of experience the range of emotions as others, but no evidence that animalistic emotions are any less experienced.

[charlou]

My argument is that human emotions are intrinsically different to those felt by animals.

If our emotions have a neurochemical basis, then how can they be intrinsically different?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I hate arguing with you, BAA. I'll come back to this subject after your bedtime when I can post without being accused of spouting trite nonsense, or told what my assumptions are.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

My argument is that human emotions are intrinsically different to those felt by animals.

If our emotions have a neurochemical basis, then how can they be intrinsically different?

The impulses that control twitching of a cockroach's antenna have a neurochemical basis. Would you class that as the same?

[charlou]

My argument is that human emotions are intrinsically different to those felt by animals.

If our emotions have a neurochemical basis, then how can they be intrinsically different?

The impulses that control twitching of a cockroach's antenna have a neurochemical basis. Would you class that as the same?

Analogous with the impulse that controls our sense of smell, perhaps, but not our emotional responses, no.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

My argument is that human emotions are intrinsically different to those felt by animals.

If our emotions have a neurochemical basis, then how can they be intrinsically different?

The impulses that control twitching of a cockroach's antenna have a neurochemical basis. Would you class that as the same?

Analogous with the impulse that controls our sense of smell, perhaps, but not our emotional responses, no.

I am not arguing against analogy. Animal emotions are analogous with human emotions - in fact, they are far more than that, as they share a common development and mechanism. All I am saying is that human emotions are far more complex, being filtered through self-awareness and reason.

[TumblingPear]

I was an atheist even as a child, before I understood the concept, although I was brought up with a bit of cultural religious identity -- Yiddish/Jewish -- which remains a part of my identity. My atheism isn't something I think much about, like the color of my eyes. It lies in the background, unless, of course, I encounter religious encroachment, such as when proselytizers knock on my door, or when the U.S. President publicly invokes God and faith. Then I feel queasy and my atheism becomes conscious. And, I then wish that there weren't the need publicly to discuss or defend something so personal.

[FBM]

I was an atheist even as a child, before I understood the concept, although I was brought up with a bit of cultural religious identity -- Yiddish/Jewish -- which remains a part of my identity. My atheism isn't something I think much about, like the color of my eyes. It lies in the background, unless, of course, I encounter religious encroachment, such as when proselytizers knock on my door, or when the U.S. President publicly invokes God and faith. Then I feel queasy and my atheism becomes conscious. And, I then wish that there weren't the need publicly to discuss or defend something so personal.

That's a large part of it for me, too. My (lack of) beliefs are my business. What goes on in my head is my business. When someone approaches and makes a grab for what's in my head, my reaction is not positive. Usually, I just brush them off, but if they persist beyond a certain point, I 'go for the throat', so to speak. Not being rude, just asking questions that I know they can't answer and that will shut them up and make them remember not to knock on my door again.

[charlou]

My argument is that human emotions are intrinsically different to those felt by animals.

If our emotions have a neurochemical basis, then how can they be intrinsically different?

The impulses that control twitching of a cockroach's antenna have a neurochemical basis. Would you class that as the same?

Analogous with the impulse that controls our sense of smell, perhaps, but not our emotional responses, no.

I am not arguing against analogy.

I was replying to your question about sensory impulses (a cockroach's antenna twitch) and whether they're the same as/analogous with emotional impulses (fear of threat). They're both neurological, but they're not the same. I was saying that emotional responses in humans and other animals have the same basis, and I think it's not unreasonable to apply our own concepts of emotion to animal emotional behaviour.

BTW, while we're talking about sensory impulses now too ... I think sensory impulses affect .. or more accurately, effect ... emotional responses. That's cultural, not genetic. My questions are do you agree, and if so is this your definition of instinct?

Animal emotions are analogous with human emotions - in fact, they are far more than that, as they share a common development and mechanism. All I am saying is that human emotions are far more complex, being filtered through self-awareness and reason.

Well, I agree with you there, but I don't think that was all you were saying to begin with.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I was replying to your question about sensory impulses (a cockroach's antenna twitch) and whether they're the same as/analogous with emotional impulses (fear of threat). They're both neurological, but they're not the same. I was saying that emotional responses in humans and other animals have the same basis, and I think it's not unreasonable to apply our own concepts of emotion to animal emotional behaviour.

As I already said above, it is not unreasonable provided you realise that you are describing something analogous and not the exact same 'feeling'.

BTW, while we're talking about sensory impulses now too ... I think sensory impulses affect .. or more accurately, effect ... emotional responses. That's cultural, not genetic. My questions are do you agree, and if so is this your definition of instinct?

I am using the word 'instinct' to refer to an innate, involuntary, unlearned, and usually predictable response to stimuli. I believe that is its usual definition. The majority of behaviour in animals other than humans is instinctive. Lambs and foals can walk within hours of birth. Similarly, no-one has to teach them herding behaviour or to run from predators, fire, or other threats.

What we refer to as emotions are a combination of mental changes in response to stimuli - as such, they are instinctive things. Usually, such as with adrenaline release in the case of fear, there are hormonal changes associated with emotions - these provide the necessary physiological changes that facilitate the instinctive responses associated with that emotion. Fear ==> release of adrenaline ==> increased heart rate, dilation of the airways and diversion of blood supply to the muscles ==> fight or flight. The hormonal changes act in unison with the instinctive responses - or at least they are supposed to - there have been reports that stress is often caused by adrenaline being produced in response to social situations that invoke fear or anger but lack any physical outlet.

Where humanity differs from other animals is in our ability to surpass our emotions. We can perform acts 'for the greater good'. We can allow something painful to happen to us - an operation, for example - in order to prevent greater pain in the future. We can resist our sexual impulses, when finding ourselves with a willing partner and ample opportunity, due to social concerns - no other animal would. We can diet, despite being hungry - when any other animal is hungry and there is food available, it eats. We can choose to ignore, or even to enjoy, fear - from the mild frisson of a fairground ride, through extreme sports, to the hooligans that seek out fights and aggro on a Saturday night.

Animal emotions are analogous with human emotions - in fact, they are far more than that, as they share a common development and mechanism. All I am saying is that human emotions are far more complex, being filtered through self-awareness and reason.

Well, I agree with you there, but I don't think that was all you were saying to begin with.

Actually, I was not talking about emotions at all to begin with! I was theorising that it is our unique sense of self that led us to invent religion. If I may, I would like to return to that - particularly the point about paranoia.

Paranoia is far more than an emotion. It is an emotional response to imagined stimuli, a delusion of persecution or danger that may or may not actually exist. I would argue that paranoia is not present in animals - that it requires self-knowledge and reason (albeit fucked-up reason) to be paranoid. So it reinforces my contention that religion springs from a sense of individual identity and anticipation of future events - paranoia is simply another aspect of this.

[Epictetus]

Paranoia is far more than an emotion. It is an emotional response to imagined stimuli, a delusion of persecution or danger that may or may not actually exist.

But if it actually exists then it's not paranoia. It's a physiological response by your body inducing you to take appropriate action --lock the door, draw the curtains, set the alarm, load the gun, join a militia...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Paranoia is far more than an emotion. It is an emotional response to imagined stimuli, a delusion of persecution or danger that may or may not actually exist.

But if it actually exists then it's not paranoia. It's a physiological response by your body inducing you to take appropriate action --lock the door, draw the curtains, set the alarm, load the gun, join a militia...

If it exists but your conviction that it exists is based upon a minimum of evidence backed up with supposition and runaway extrapolation, then it is still paranoia - you just got lucky.

[Epictetus]

Paranoia is far more than an emotion. It is an emotional response to imagined stimuli, a delusion of persecution or danger that may or may not actually exist.

But if it actually exists then it's not paranoia. It's a physiological response by your body inducing you to take appropriate action --lock the door, draw the curtains, set the alarm, load the gun, join a militia...

If it exists but your conviction that it exists is based upon a minimum of evidence backed up with supposition and runaway extrapolation, then it is still paranoia - you just got lucky.

Better to err on the side of caution.

Incidentally, every time I log onto this forum my computer gets attacked. Could it be that somebody here doesn't like me? Or am I just being paranoid?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Paranoia is far more than an emotion. It is an emotional response to imagined stimuli, a delusion of persecution or danger that may or may not actually exist.

But if it actually exists then it's not paranoia. It's a physiological response by your body inducing you to take appropriate action --lock the door, draw the curtains, set the alarm, load the gun, join a militia...

If it exists but your conviction that it exists is based upon a minimum of evidence backed up with supposition and runaway extrapolation, then it is still paranoia - you just got lucky.

Better to err on the side of caution.

Incidentally, every time I log onto this forum my computer gets attacked. Could it be that somebody here doesn't like me? Or am I just being paranoid?

Depends. If you think it is being attacked by Russian botnets, then it's probably just paranoia. On the other hand, if it's being pelted with semen-soaked underpants, that's probably pawiz.