Login

Statler Waldorf · (This post was last modified: May 24, 2011 at 8:18 pm by Statler Waldorf.)

Thanks for the clarification on the first point. I disagree with you, but you explained your position well. I feel that the law of contradiction, law of identity, and etc would still exist even if all humans died out on earth, so I think they exist apart from humanity not because of it. Interesting topic though.

As to your second point, maybe we are just missing each other on this one. When I say rational I mean having the ability to exercise reason, which is something animals and natural events do not possess. So my question is where did this ability come from? It seems that a person’s ability to discern truth is unrelated to survivability, so I do not believe Darwinian processes could explain how the rational mind arose. Any thoughts?

It's really sad you find such uncivil action something to be proud of. I find your beliefs equally as ridiculous as you find mind but notice I do not stoop to your level. I just find it disappointing that many of the atheists on here get on me for being confident in my position but give you a free pass for being completely rude and uncivil. Kind of goes to show that there really is no such thing as a fair minded individual. That being said, I am not responding to any of your posts from here on out, if you want to waste your time it is your time to waste. Good luck in all your endeavors and may God bless you.

TheDarkestOfAngels · (This post was last modified: May 24, 2011 at 8:38 pm by TheDarkestOfAngels.)

(May 24, 2011 at 1:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The first cause had to be separate from the universe because nothing can bring itself into existence because it would have to exist and not-exist prior to its existence which violates the law of contradiction.

I would like to add to what the Reverend already stated about this 'infinate regression' based on an arguement you've made against me in regards to radioactive decay.
Which is to say that you've argued against the legitimacy of using radioactive decay based on 'we weren't there, therefore we couldn't possibly rely on estimates based on radioactive decay.

The arguement above is entirely invalid due to, well, evidence, but ignoring that for a moment, you have to realize just how hypocritical your argument for a 'first cause' is. You have zero evidence of any 'first cause' - particularly one started by an intelligent being and no human or even testable evidence would be around to validate your statements.

(May 24, 2011 at 8:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Thanks for the clarification on the first point. I disagree with you, but you explained your position well. I feel that the law of contradiction, law of identity, and etc would still exist even if all humans died out on earth, so I think they exist apart from humanity not because of it. Interesting topic though.

The laws of logic would exist independant of humans only if there were other beings that could use them. That is to say, they have a nuanced language the equal or better of humans.

(May 24, 2011 at 8:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: As to your second point, maybe we are just missing each other on this one. When I say rational I mean having the ability to exercise reason, which is something animals and natural events do not possess. So my question is where did this ability come from? It seems that a person’s ability to discern truth is unrelated to survivability, so I do not believe Darwinian processes could explain how the rational mind arose. Any thoughts?

Storms and natural events do not have the ability to exercise reason. Animals other than humans can be another matter entirely, however.
I don't know what ability you're thinking of to answer your first question.
A person's ability to discern truth from fiction is intergal to survivability. In nature, creatures frequently use deception tactics to survive or hunt. For example, humans can get along very well in the wild if they can tell apart nearly identical berries where one is poisonous and the other is nutritious. Numerous animals have the ability to make similar discernments about their surroundings as well. Evolution has bred this constant arms race for millions of years and many of the creatures alive today are exceptionally talented in their ability to survive based on their ability to 'discern truth.'
So you might not believe it, but your view of nature is exceptionally skewed.

Angrboda · (This post was last modified: May 24, 2011 at 10:04 pm by Angrboda.)

(May 23, 2011 at 8:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually I was not rude to you at all, I simply said I was disappointed because you always expect people to give reasons for what they believe but when you are pressed as to what you believe you dodge the issue or just flat out ignore the questions as you did in the PM. Don’t misrepresent the facts please.

I'll let the hellhounds of damnation decide.

Statler Waldorf in private message to apophenia Wrote:I only ask additional questions when I think the answers I am getting are not well thought out, are arbitrary, or are not based on rationality. I had hoped that you'd be a different kind of atheist, sadly I guess I will have to continue waiting for an atheist to sign up for this forum who can actually back their beliefs up.

I don't know about you, but I consider that an unwarranted insult. And an 'angry face' is at odds with your claim that you were just 'disappointed'.

But by all means, back up your implied claim that I cannot back up my claims. You cannot, because there is no such evidence, and even a fool like you knows better than to attempt to prove a negative. So you were just blowing smoke, insulting, uncharitable.

The only person misrepresenting facts here is you.

(May 23, 2011 at 8:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Even if everyone hated me on here (which they don’t, I have a positive rep and have several theists I get along with fine on here) it would not bother me in the least. I have been ten times more civil to others on here as they have been to me. I have been called a “F**ker”, “Moron”, “Sh**head”, “A**hole”, told to die, told to suck a fart out of someone’s a**, and a closet homosexual just to name a few of my favorites to date. If you can point to any example where I have used such brutality, be my guest.

There are worse things than harsh language, in my book, and prophets with lying spirits in their mouths are among them. There is a passage in the Tao Te Ching which analogizes the Tao's relationship to reality as like a king to his subjects -- they are ruthless, treating the subjects as dummies. I see some of this in you, yet you carry no crown. I am unfairly biased to value goodness and truth above all else, but my gambit on you is that you gleefully bend the corners of truth if you feel it serves a higher purpose. That's just my bias. (And when I said 'nobody', I was using hyperbole; I should be clearer where there is controversy.)

(May 23, 2011 at 8:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The fact is though; you give all these atheists a pass and bash the theist just because he does not compromise on his positions.

More lies. The fact of the matter is that I will attack sloppy thinking, bad morals or untruth wherever they may live. It matter not to me whether it live in the breast of a theist or atheist. I'm more than happy to listen to Fr0d0 as I trust him, and believe he is dealing straight from the top of the deck; for whatever reason, I don't get that impression from you (your apparent willingness to lie and criticize based on ad hominem doesn't help; as to the rest, many of your behaviors are straight out of the traditional sophistry and casuistry practiced by some religious positions (YEC) -- impossible to concretely demonstrate, so I give a pass on this. However, if others are as knowledgeable about prior examples of the use of such argument as I am, it is disrespectful to parade before them old paint and claim it a war horse).

(May 23, 2011 at 8:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: As to why you are an atheist now, I do not know. I know it is one of two things, you are either one of the sheep and just in a period of doubt, or you never were one of the sheep. As to which you are, that is not up to me.

You are so wrapped up in your silly, private fantasies, if a shaft of daylight were ever to penetrate it would scare you to death. I can only presume that by "one of the sheep" you mean a believer in Christ. I was one at one time, though since you've given it a pass, I'll tell you that I don't even know why I stopped believing, but I'm confident it had nothing to do with doubt. You are correct that doubt continues to propel my disbelief, doubt that Theism can bring reasonably believable evidence to the table. There are many things I don't believe for lack of evidence. The banal idiocy of both common and gifted defenses of belief don't encourage me any, either. Oddly enough, not only are you displaying hypocrisy in asserting intelligence to re-converted theists and don't consider yourself owing of the same burden with respect to deconversions, since my "story" is posted publicly on this board, a resourceful person might have looked for it and used it to prosecute their case; but that resourceful person is not you.

(May 23, 2011 at 8:38 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You cannot tell me how people as intelligent as Carl Wieland and Alister McGrath can denounce their atheism and decide to carry the cross can you?

I can't definitively claim to know without examining some evidence in the matter, but since you can't do the same in the other direction, who cares? In general terms, my belief is that people are not essentially rational creatures, and are moved more by the dialectics of emotion, and social needs. Moreover, while I confess no absolute claim to belief in coherence theories of truth, I'm sure that figures into it. As such, beliefs are developed and maintained by "discourses" whose logic and rhythm is not ultimately guided by truth or evidence; thus, persons likely become theists -- after age of majority -- for the same types of reasons that people become atheists. [See -- I do NOT simply give atheists a pass. Your assertion has been tried and found wanting.]

ETA: I also note that you failed to answer my challenge to answer why we care about the fate of fictional characters in the way that we do? Why we agonize when our hero's fate is balancing on a knife edge, why writers killing off a favorite character can sadden us deeply, or why we want Huck Finn to come out all right? I don't expect you'll have an answer to this, but I'd be delighted to hear your speculations on the matter -- presuming you consider the human experience worth explaining; I've peeked in the good book, and am ignorant of any answers written there -- which is odd, given that the book involves the same themes, the narratives of great characters that move us to sadness, anger, joy, and experiences of the sublime. Given what we now know about the complexity and difficulty in correctly interpreting texts, don't you consider it strange that God wouldn't have included instructions on how his book is to be read? A hermeneutic to preface Genesis, an interpretive stance "woven" in the text like language savvy essays on the written word, or even so much as a "this book was meant to be read in the original Hebrew" to prevent Latin theologians from working in error? Where are the footnotes, the index, the table of contents? My God would certainly be capable of producing a more perspicacious document than this -- why not your God?

reverendjeremiah · (This post was last modified: May 24, 2011 at 9:37 pm by reverendjeremiah.)

(May 24, 2011 at 8:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It's really sad you find such uncivil action something to be proud of. I find your beliefs equally as ridiculous as you find mind but notice I do not stoop to your level. I just find it disappointing that many of the atheists on here get on me for being confident in my position but give you a free pass for being completely rude and uncivil. Kind of goes to show that there really is no such thing as a fair minded individual. That being said, I am not responding to any of your posts from here on out, if you want to waste your time it is your time to waste. Good luck in all your endeavors and may God bless you.

It is? Then why am I smilling and laughing if it is so sad? I would actually give MORE respect to you if you could dish it out. But you cant. You sit there rubbing your eyes under your aligator tears trying to look persecuted for being joked out for saying idiotic shit. Do you actually think the majority of atheists on this board actually give a fuck about what you think about them? Oh stop your melancholy drivel.

I get a free pass because Im so hot and sexy.

You get ragged on because ..well... you are Waldorf.

'nuff said

waldork Wrote:I will have to continue waiting for an atheist to sign up for this forum who can actually back their beliefs up

And this is why we mock you. Atheists DISbelieve. The burdon of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

Statler Waldorf · May 25, 2011 at 8:34 pm

I think you are getting my arguments confused here. I am making a logical argument here, not a scientific one. So the fact I was not there to observe the first cause is irrelevant to its logical validity. If I remember correctly I think my objections to your use of radiometric dating was focused on your uniformitarian principles and the fact you had no control to prove the method was valid. I don’t think any of that is relevant to the “first cause” logical argument for God. You say the evidence disproves my position, are you suggesting you have evidence that one, something can create itself, or two it is possible to have an infinite series of causes? I feel have plenty of empirical evidence that out of nothing nothing comes and a good logical argument against an infinite series of causes.

I disagree that evolution would preserve rationality in humans (even if it did preserve it, that doesn’t explain where the first rational mind came from). Say I have a set of berries, the red ones are poisonous and the blue ones are not. Even if I hold an irrational view that eating anything red will turn me into a frog and I thus do not eat the red berries I will survive and this irrational thought is thus preserved. I think there is plenty of empirical evidence suggesting that non-rational events cannot give rise to rational minds. A rational creator is a better explanation I think. Feel free to opine though.

Oops, I was actually looking for a frowning face, not an angry one. I apologize if that came across the wrong way.

Where did I ask you to prove a negative? Even if you hold a negative position, I would expect you to have good reasons for holding it. I do not believe in aliens, this is a negative position but I can still back it up with reasoning.

I didn’t realize we were playing only by the rules in “your book” here. I assume I am the prophet with the lying spirit? I am not a prophet, and nor have I lied about anything. If you are convinced I have please point to the instance so we can rectify the situation, if you cannot then please stop bearing false witness.

Again, I am not lying at all. To me you are very inconsistent on this issue. You were part of the “Atheism is a Religion” thread and I am sure you saw the ad hominem attacks against me on that thread and yet you did not criticize the attackers, only to turn around and criticize me for being “rude”. C’mon.

There is no such thing as a “deconversion” in Christianity. Scripture is very clear that you either die a Christian or you never were one. So either you will die a Christian or you never were one. Since you are still very much alive, I cannot tell you which of these is the case here. You may not agree with this, but since I am a Christian and believe scripture is inerrant it is completely consistent for me to hold this position.

I guess I could pull a page from your playbook here and say “sorry your dime is up, no more questions”. As tempting as that is, just to see how you like it, I will rise up and answer the question.
Man is made in God’s image. So man feels sympathy for other men because they too are made in the image of God. Even if the character is fictional, they too are modeled after creatures made in God’s image. Man inherently recognizes this and therefore almost always holds a higher respect for other humans than any other creatures on earth. Even if we feel sympathy for another creature I would argue it is because we see attributes in them that are human in nature. People are far more likely to feel sympathy for a talking dog’s plight in a story than just a normal dog.
Regarding your second point as to “why didn’t God include footnotes in His book”, this assumes (incorrectly I believe) that God is desperately wanting everyone to read scripture, and come to a saving faith because of it, if only they could understand it better! This is not the case at all (see what Jesus says when he is asked why he uses parables). Everyone God wants to save will get saved. Sin clouds some of our interpretive abilities; even the disciples made mistakes so it is ridiculous to assume we wouldn’t make any even if we had inspired footnotes in Genesis. A sinful fallible mind not understanding why a perfect infallible being did something is not only reasonable but quite frankly expected. As to the whole “my God can beat up your God” point, I am obligated to believe what scripture teaches, not what my sinful mind thinks it should teach. So it is not really “my God”, it is what scripture says. Did I understand what you were asking?

Anymouse · (This post was last modified: May 25, 2011 at 10:06 pm by Anymouse.)

(May 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Ok, so I have written up a questionnaire for you all. You do not have to answer each of the questions, but I am interested in knowing what the different opinions of atheists are on these questions. . . .

P.S. Theists, feel free to answer these questions as well.

1. What evidence would convince you of God’s existence?

Which god? I presume you mean the one described in the Bible. Independently-verifiable evidence. Can't speculate on the nature of the evidence, as it has not yet been found.

Quote: 2. You see the words, “I love you” written in the sand at the beach. Is this man-made? If so, how do you know?

Having evidence that men and women do this, and lacking evidence that gods do, I would have to provisionally accept the former (unless evidence is subsequently presented for the later).

Quote: 3. If the God of the Bible were real, would He set the rules or would man set the rules?

In such a hypothetical situation (you started with "if"), I suppose it would be up to him. Likewise, if Allah of the Koran is real, I suppose it would be up to him, too.

Quote: 4. Do moral laws exist? If so, do they exist independent of humans? How do you know what they are?

"Moral laws" is undefined in this question. Does morality exist? Yes, and it is not dependent on religion.

Quote: 5. If everyone on earth believed that rape were morally right, would it still be morally wrong?

I presume that would include the victims feel it is morally right. A slippery question indeed. Our societies today generally consider it immoral, regardless of religious view, though in some it is still used as a weapon of terror or war.

If everyone on Earth believed that nuclear weapons were morally right, would it be morally wrong to own or use them? Would it be morally wrong for Iran or Israel or Guatemala to develop or buy them?

If you consider nuclear weapons "morally wrong," is it also not a moral wrong to pay tax money to a government (such as the USA or the UK), which then in turn uses that money to develop, procure, and deploy them?

A concept of "right" and "wrong" can be defined without religion. For example, the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If I were a masochist, and wanted to be beaten, does this give me permission to "do the same unto you?" I would replace the "Golden Rule," with its failure to cover such possibilities (thus, making it an imperfect rule) with something more like "If you harm none, do what you wish." But I am not in charge here.

Quote: 6. What is the most dangerous religion on Earth?

Any philosophy, including religion, can be "dangerous." Dangerous is undefined here. I would consider telling me what I can't read (like Twain's Huckleberry Finn or Lewis's It Can't Happen Here "dangerous." Many religions are guilty of atrocities (but not all).

Quote: 7. Where did the laws of logic come from?

"Logic" is the rules of valid reasoning and deduction, and rules as to what constitutes invalid reasoning. Logic has been developed as a system by many cultures all around the world for settling philosophical and scientific questions. No one society or culture can claim to "own" the "rules" of logic.

Moreover, like many things humans discover, our opinions change when new information is discovered that renders the old obsolete. While I cannot imagine a system that more concretely develops ideas than logic, I do not infer from that there is none.

Quote: 8. How did non-rational events and processes lead to a rational human mind?

I am not sufficiently versed in the sciences or religion to render a credible answer to this. I would point out though, that Benoit Mandelbrot, mathematician, when questioning how such things as waves of sand on sand dunes could be so regular though comprised of random sand grains, set out to find a mathematical model. He did, and there is an explanation (I would note that just because he came up with an explanation it is not necessarily right, but his explanation can be tested). The Mandelbrot Set, a graph of the function of random particles aligning themselves into an organized set, is now available as a poster in good head shops everywhere. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set )

Quote: 9. Why do some atheists such as Carl Wieland and Alister McGrath become Christians?

I cannot answer this; I do not know them. Presumably for the same reason some Christians become atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, &c. Because it made sense to them.

Quote: 10. How do beliefs and thoughts differ?

Two very slippery terms, both of which give rise to argument between the religious and the atheist, because each means a different thing when they use the words. Without common language, grammar, and rules, no meaningful communication can exist between them; these two words are examples of this.

Quote: 11. Do you believe that God does not exist?

Which god? Anyone who holds to a particular religious view, say Christianity, believes in exactly the same thing about every god or goddess ever postulated by humankind as an atheist does, except their own god. Such religious people might even use logic to try to refute the existence of a god not their own, demanding empirical evidence for the existence of Thor or Eris, say.

Quote: 12. Do you think that God does not exist?

Which god?

Quote: 13. How do you think life began on Earth?

Religious or not, I am comfortable with the answer, "I do not know."

Anymouse.

TheDarkestOfAngels · May 25, 2011 at 10:52 pm

(May 25, 2011 at 8:34 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I think you are getting my arguments confused here. I am making a logical argument here, not a scientific one. So the fact I was not there to observe the first cause is irrelevant to its logical validity. If I remember correctly I think my objections to your use of radiometric dating was focused on your uniformitarian principles and the fact you had no control to prove the method was valid. I don’t think any of that is relevant to the “first cause” logical argument for God. You say the evidence disproves my position, are you suggesting you have evidence that one, something can create itself, or two it is possible to have an infinite series of causes? I feel have plenty of empirical evidence that out of nothing nothing comes and a good logical argument against an infinite series of causes.

I did say that the evidence disproves the position that radiometric dating is invalid, but I was setting that aside for the purposes of pointing out a bit of hypocracy on your part.

My point being that even using your logical arguementation in which you say that there must be a 'first cause' contradicts your logical arguement of radiometric dating being invalid.

(May 25, 2011 at 8:34 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I disagree that evolution would preserve rationality in humans (even if it did preserve it, that doesn’t explain where the first rational mind came from). Say I have a set of berries, the red ones are poisonous and the blue ones are not. Even if I hold an irrational view that eating anything red will turn me into a frog and I thus do not eat the red berries I will survive and this irrational thought is thus preserved. I think there is plenty of empirical evidence suggesting that non-rational events cannot give rise to rational minds. A rational creator is a better explanation I think. Feel free to opine though.

Really? What if that irrational thought is based on very rational observations? Perhaps his information was wrong. Perhaps he saw someone die four hours earlier after eating the red berries and returned only to find a missing body (thanks to woodland creatures) and a frog that just happened to have decided that his shoe (or other garment) was a pleasant place to hide from predators? Perhaps this person is ignorant of nature enough to not understand what happened, so he rationalized it by attributing the berry to being magical.
Irrational or otherwise, the dangerous nature of the red berries was logically concluded to be dangerous in my more complete scenario, even if the exact conclusion wasn't entirely rational (thanks to lacking a proper education on the part of the observer).
People rationalize things they don't understand all the time. This is why christians attribute natural disasters to somehow mean that god is angry at americans for repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell or some other ridiculous thing.

A rational god is a better explaination for what? Better how? It's certainly an easy explaination, but hardly a rational one or even one that can actually explain how the human mind came to be.

Angrboda · May 25, 2011 at 11:43 pm

(May 25, 2011 at 8:34 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: ....a bunch of stuff, proving once again how you can tell if a creationist is lying....

I never claimed you asked me to prove a negative, but I'll let this one go, as reading comprehension and basic logic are obviously not your strong suit.

Second, I never claimed you were "rude" to me. I said that you had mouthed off to me in private message because I chose not to talk to you (my words being, "I think your dime is up, dude..."). That you have changed the terms of the question is yet another example of your moving the goalposts to suit your fancy. Which is typical of your ilk. (I've caught you at it twice.) Now, if anyone cares to argue that you didn't in fact mouth off to me in pm, let them do so. You obviously can't be bothered with actually arguing the question as put.

But I digress. To borrow a few lines from Marge Piercy,

The cockroach knows as much as you know about living.
We trust with our hands and our eyes and our bellies.
The cunt accepts.
The teeth and back reject.
What we have to give each other:
dumb and mysterious as water swirling.
Always in the long corridors of the psyche
doors are opening and doors are slamming shut.
We rise each day to give birth or to murder
selves that go through our hands like tiny fish.
You said: I am the organizer, and took and used.
You wrapped your head in theory like yards of gauze

and touched others only as tools that fit to your task
and if the tool broke you seized another.
Arrogance is not a revolutionary virtue.
The manipulator liberates only
the mad bulldozers of the ego to level the ground.
I was a tool that screamed in the hand.
I have been loving you so long and hard and mean
and the taste of you is part of my tongue
and your face is burnt into my eyelids
and I could build you with my fingers out of dust
and now it is over.
Whether we want or not
our roots go down to strange waters,
we are creatures of the seasons and the earth.
You always had a reason and you have them still
rattling like dried leaves on a stunted tree.

You need not bother replying to this. I do not intend to reply to you any further. If I should perhaps do so, don't get excited, for it's surely nothing more than a momentary lapse of judgement. When the meds kick in, it will correct itself. I have no use for you. You're adept at debating, but you seem to lack any gift for nuance. Simply not worth my time. This song's for you. Goodbye.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaWikvLY1CY

Anomalocaris · (This post was last modified: May 26, 2011 at 7:08 am by Anomalocaris.)

(May 25, 2011 at 11:43 pm)apophenia Wrote: (statler).......You're adept at debating, but you seem to lack any gift for nuance......

It's hard to be nuanced about verbal masterbation.

He is adept at none of the fruitful aspects of debating. He neither submits to mutural examination for the purposes of Finding, broadening, validating and reaffirming the more meritorious of the two arguments, nor attempt any persuasive advocacy or nonporous defense of his own position, nor even play effectively to any audience that's actually present. He ignores rebuttals. He waste time by rehash long discredited garbage without doing anything to reinvigorate the same old lines. He falls back on claims of authority without credentials. He attacks the qualification of his counterparts without addressing the arguments presented before him. He mimics poorly only some of the form of a debate while avoiding the all of the substance of a debate. He comes here apparently for the sole purpose of acting out the fantasy of being the fount of higher received wisdom, using this forum and it's participants as props in a piece of self-absorbed theatric played to himself as the main audience. But maybe that can not be avoided in one deluded enough to subscribe to the sickeningly Calvinist mixture of maximum moral conceit and maximum intellectual servility, the fantasy of being capriciously "elected" by a cruel despot to whom one nonetheless owns eternal and all encompassing graveling subservience.

He is jerking off, moaning the words of his "theology", at the expense of persons charitable enough to give him some time. Too bad before his end comes and the ultimate blackness descends irrevocably to extinguish his last delusional light, he can't be made to pay back all the valuable time he took away from the rest of us.

downbeatplumb · May 26, 2011 at 1:05 pm

(May 24, 2011 at 8:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: As to your second point, maybe we are just missing each other on this one. When I say rational I mean having the ability to exercise reason, which is something animals and natural events do not possess. So my question is where did this ability come from? It seems that a person’s ability to discern truth is unrelated to survivability, so I do not believe Darwinian processes could explain how the rational mind arose. Any thoughts?

examples of animals using reason.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abst...09)01455-9

Quote:In Aesop's fable The Crow and the Pitcher, a thirsty crow uses stones to raise the level of water in a pitcher and quench its thirst. A number of corvids have been found to use tools in the wild [1,2,3,4], and New Caledonian crows appear to understand the functional properties of tools and solve complex physical problems via causal and analogical reasoning [5,6,7,8,9,10,11]. The rook, another member of the corvid family that does not appear to use tools in the wild, also appears able to solve non-tool-related problems via similar reasoning [12]. Here, we present evidence that captive rooks are also able to solve a complex problem by using tools. We presented four captive rooks with a problem analogous to Aesop's fable: raising the level of water so that a floating worm moved into reach. All four subjects solved the problem with an appreciation of precisely how many stones were needed. Three subjects also rapidly learned to use large stones over small ones, and that sawdust cannot be manipulated in the same manner as water. This behavior demonstrates a flexible ability to use tools, a finding with implications for the evolution of tool use and cognition in animals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cp7_In7f88

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-euMlL9O1Kc

you also state that a persons ability to discern truth is unrelated to survivability.
This is a positive claim and needs explaining.
why isnt it a survival trait to ascertain truth?

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me