Religious Discussion

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

Way to try to make me sound like a jackass MM.
I don't really have anything as you say...."rational" to add. Define rational. To myself, the idea of evolution just kinda happening is irrational. I believe in evolution! I just think something bigger than us got the ball rolling.

As you said, "how does it affect us in the present." As far as I can tell, it doesn't. I feel no obligation to worship, if a god wanted us to do that, it would have made all of us do it. As for where that divine spark went, why its not around, and in what way to prove? I couldn't really answer that. It's called faith.

I really dont know why I'm wasting my breath, I'm sure your going to try and make me sound like an idiot again. Your rather good at that.

I say Creationism aka Intelligent Design is Magic theory.

"How did this come to being?"

"MAGIC! 8D"

But that's for another topic.

I can never believe something so far-fetched as Adam and Eve. If that were true, then we would all be related and have been living in a giant cess pool of...incest.​

Magic???....Really?....If something naturally had the power to shape the universe, it would be magic to you? To itself, its just doing what it does. The same as bees making honey.
They just do.

If something appeared out of nowhere and SUDDENLY was doing whatever- I would call that magic. And Evolutionism isn't just something suddenly happening- not like Intelligent Design. it's the tiniest of changes- a mutation, if you will- or natural selection in which something is more designed to survive than something else and so those genes carry on until something better comes along.

BUT AS I SAID BEFORE---

There is another topic for this discussion.

But as I also said before- I don't believe in a higher power shaping the entire universe. Since I can't convince you that evolutionism is more viable- to me- than creationism will ever be, then you can't keep trying to convince me that a higher power made the universe and everything in it. I will never believe a multi-cellular organism was suddenly put on the planet out of nowhere and knew exactly what it needed to do in order to survive and learn.

​

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

For those of you who want to insist that belief, or disbelief, is a choice, I'd like to invite you all to believe that right now, outside your house in the nearest tree, is a colony of trolls. These trolls are responsible for you misplacing things; whenever something's not where you remember putting it, the trolls are responsible. At the same time, I'd like you to try not believing in gravity. Just decide it simply doesn't exist.

Now, if belief is a choice, you should be able to accept both of these things without any problems. Not only should you be able to accept them, but they should make so much sense as to become basic part of your overall outlook of the world as a whole.

That right there makes no sense. Gravity was proven to exist. Trolls? really? you're gonna go with trolls? If belief is a choice, like I have stated, then I don't have to believe in those things. I've heard of several people who would believe that aliens invaded their mind but not that shooting someone is wrong.

When I was looking at the technology analogy, I was looking at the negatives. Do not try to tell me what I know about a computer, please.

But you just proved you supported my belief that it's a choice. He had doubts. When you start to doubt something how can you believe in it? Some people "think" that something is real. And then when they are proven wrong it's takes a heavy toll. Like how I can think the moon is made of cheese forever and then be told it isn't. But even with given facts, I don't have to believe it. That's my choice.


PS: using psychotic people as a means to prove your point is rather stupid since they are psychotic and not right in the head to begin with. being brainwashed usually does that.​

 

[Mr Master]

I really dont know why I'm wasting my breath, I'm sure your going to try and make me sound like an idiot again. Your rather good at that.

I'm not trying to make you feel like an idiot. It just feels like you're trolling the thread, and this isn't the kind of thread where that flies. This is kind of supposed to be rational friendly discussion, hence the "Academy" forum, and it doesn't seem like the contributions here have much to do with it.

I'm not making an effort to make you seem like anything. You make a statement, I address it in the manner befitting the environment. If that makes you seem foolish... maybe the problem isn't me.

 

[Kawamura]

I believe in a higher power, and all the proof I need is all around me.
Cosmic soup suddenly doing amazing and incomprehensible things that just happens to randomly, over a bajillion years, turn into the computer your typing on, the people your arguing with, and the earth outside?

Sorry. To me, that sounds just as far-fetched as.....well.....as a man and a woman eating an apple and starting humanity.

To be fair, both are far-fetched because they aren't what any scenario that anyone is talking about, right?

 

[Kawamura]

Why? If you compare a social animal to a solitary animal, isn't that unfair? I never said humans didn't have instincts- but it seems more like they develop them as they grow up. Survival instincts are different in humans because of their development. Baby animals know they need to walk within an hour of birth in order for them to survive- humans cannot do this. They take at least a year to learn how to walk. Comparing humans to social animals- which humans are- seems plenty fair to me.

Do the babies of chimapanzees know how to walk immediately?

Why put a social animal on its own and say "look how badly it does!" That's unfair. Social animals evolved to rely on the group, so why say "see how it can't survive alone?" as a way of saying it has no instincts.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

Why? If you compare a social animal to a solitary animal, isn't that unfair? I never said humans didn't have instincts- but it seems more like they develop them as they grow up. Survival instincts are different in humans because of their development. Baby animals know they need to walk within an hour of birth in order for them to survive- humans cannot do this. They take at least a year to learn how to walk. Comparing humans to social animals- which humans are- seems plenty fair to me.

Do the babies of chimapanzees know how to walk immediately?

Why put a social animal on its own and say "look how badly it does!" That's unfair. Social animals evolved to rely on the group, so why say "see how it can't survive alone?" as a way of saying it has no instincts.

As I said- I never said it didn't have instincts so cut that out. And of course it can't survive alone, but I was comparing it to other social animals who develop much quicker. Monkeys are very closely related to us but they also develop quicker than we do as well. I was saying that human beings are a weaker species than other animals and that humans don't have all the instincts at the ready like other animals do.​

 

[Mr Master]

For those of you who want to insist that belief, or disbelief, is a choice, I'd like to invite you all to believe that right now, outside your house in the nearest tree, is a colony of trolls. These trolls are responsible for you misplacing things; whenever something's not where you remember putting it, the trolls are responsible. At the same time, I'd like you to try not believing in gravity. Just decide it simply doesn't exist.

As classic a straw man argument as you can get.

Hahvoc, I think you missed a part where I said you can both subtract AND add components to hardware; taking a computer for example, you can add more memory, a better video card, a new drive, etc etc. Thus your analogy is not a very good one, because you can modify a piece of hardware in a positive manner.

Oh, so you're going to keep pushing the metaphor far beyond the point it was expected to make (and made)? All right, then.

As for studying this, I've spent the last four years studying religion, it's effects on people, and it's affects one society. The more devout most people are, I've found, the easier their belief becomes. To say that real belief is hard, because it's natural to doubt, is incorrect. After all, the men and women strapping bombs to themselves and going for a bus ride don't seem to have any doubt whatsoever that they're right. Same with these psycho-evangelists who try and push ID; the documentary Jesus Camp is a horrifying look at this kind of thing.

Another good look at belief, and how it's not a choice, would be Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became one of America's Leading Atheists, by Dan Barker. The first few chapters, where he recounts his time as a preacher, he mentions numerous times how he 'knew' that he was right, how he 'knew' that God was real. He then goes into how he began to doubt, until finally he realizes he no longer believes. No choice involved.

Belief is something that happens.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were in a theological studies program. It didn't seem a good fit with what you'd already told us about yourself.

What gets me is how you keep going on as if there's only one way for a complex operation like a human mind to operate. Like there's only one way the universe does... anything. There's not. And I'm not sure your points and references tell the story you think they do (which, again, speaks to a multiplicity of interpretations, which in turn goes to show the universe doesn't do complex things just one way). You know why they have to keep hammering and brainwashing the kids in Jesus Camp? Because if they don't, they might have an independent thought. They might realize there are other options for them, and choose differently.

You want belief, and choice, how about racism? People raised in white supremacist communities who grow up and realize that maybe what they were taught isn't true? They could ignore the evidence and go back to believing whites are better, just like a Christian could look at a personal tragedy and think that God had a purpose for this tragedy, that God had a reason. Or they could question their upbringing, just like a Christian might take it as evidence that there's no God, or God doesn't really care. We've got ample evidence of it going either way. You could say there's only one rational choice, and that may be true, but people have the ability to choose to ignore the truth and keep thinking like they have before. That's as much a choice as any.

 

[Kawamura]

As I said- I never said it didn't have instincts so cut that out. And of course it can't survive alone, but I was comparing it to other social animals who develop much quicker. Monkeys are very closely related to us but they also develop quicker than we do as well. I was saying that human beings are a weaker species than other animals and that humans don't have all the instincts at the ready like other animals do.​

Develop much quicker. Hrm. Have you ever wondered what the length of time spent in the care of parents means?

What instincts would you like humans to have at the ready to make them not "a weaker species"?

 

[Grumm]

"That right there makes no sense. Gravity was proven to exist. Trolls? really? you're gonna go with trolls?"

Incorrect. Gravity is a theory. Anyone throwing around the proof-bomb doesn't know modern science; all we have are theories. After all, we may find something tomorrow that better explains the attraction between masses than gravity does. We accept gravity as true because that theory fits all available evidence. As for trolls, what's so crazy about that? Is it truly harder to believe in trolls than an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving guy in the sky?

Second, you keep saying the belief is a choice. Okay. Fine. I just asked you to well and truly believe a couple things for a moment. All you have to do is to choose to. If you can't do that, then your theory fails. Heck, you don't even have to believe it for that long; once you've proven your theory, you can choose to stop believing again.


"When I was looking at the technology analogy, I was looking at the negatives. Do not try to tell me what I know about a computer, please."

Correct; you looked at the negatives without addressing the positives. You stated that the brain is like hardware, behavior like software, and that you could change the software but not the hardware. When I pointed out that this was a bad analogy, you stated that you could remove parts of the hardware but that this would likely cause a degradation of the hardware's performance. You left out the fact that you can also add new, better components; in other words, you're cherry-picking. I'm not trying to "tell you what you know about a computer", I'm pointing out that you're leaving something out.


"But you just proved you supported my belief that it's a choice. He had doubts. When you start to doubt something how can you believe in it?"

Ah, but his doubt's weren't by choice. As in the case of anyone who has passed through belief and into disbelief, the doubts arose of their own. Something stopped making sense. Something felt wrong. He didn't choose to stop believing. And you're right in one regard; even if presented with facts, with evidence, some people will still believe. But what I'm trying to get across is that it's not a conscious choice to believe. I can no more bring myself to believe in God than you can bring yourself to believe in trolls.

And for the record, when I began to doubt, I still believed. I thought that my doubts would be resolved somehow by God. Instead, my studies led me to disbelief.

 

[Mr Master]

As I said- I never said it didn't have instincts so cut that out. And of course it can't survive alone, but I was comparing it to other social animals who develop much quicker. Monkeys are very closely related to us but they also develop quicker than we do as well. I was saying that human beings are a weaker species than other animals and that humans don't have all the instincts at the ready like other animals do.​

Develop much quicker. Hrm. Have you ever wondered what the length of time spent in the care of parents means?

What instincts would you like humans to have at the ready to make them not "a weaker species"?

Would it help if she kept her instinct question focused on "religious belief?" Or should we start a different thread for Instincts of Humans?

 

[Mr Master]

"That right there makes no sense. Gravity was proven to exist. Trolls? really? you're gonna go with trolls?"

Incorrect. Gravity is a theory. Anyone throwing around the proof-bomb doesn't know modern science; all we have are theories. After all, we may find something tomorrow that better explains the attraction between masses than gravity does. We accept gravity as true because that theory fits all available evidence. As for trolls, what's so crazy about that? Is it truly harder to believe in trolls than an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving guy in the sky?

Oh, God, now you're bringing up the definition of a scientific theory! At least Kawa is already involved in this thread.

And... you are aware that you're challenging fellow atheists to argue, what, in favor of belief? Me, I just don't think it operates the way you think it operates, because HUMANS don't operate that way. I have no problem with your conclusions, just your process.

Second, you keep saying the belief is a choice. Okay. Fine. I just asked you to well and truly believe a couple things for a moment. All you have to do is to choose to. If you can't do that, then your theory fails. Heck, you don't even have to believe it for that long; once you've proven your theory, you can choose to stop believing again.

You asked her to believe stupid things. The people who believe in God, it doesn't seem stupid to them. It seems natural. If trolls seemed natural, belief would seem easy. Your experiment was poorly thought out and proves just about nothing.

"When I was looking at the technology analogy, I was looking at the negatives. Do not try to tell me what I know about a computer, please."

Correct; you looked at the negatives without addressing the positives. You stated that the brain is like hardware, behavior like software, and that you could change the software but not the hardware. When I pointed out that this was a bad analogy, you stated that you could remove parts of the hardware but that this would likely cause a degradation of the hardware's performance. You left out the fact that you can also add new, better components; in other words, you're cherry-picking. I'm not trying to "tell you what you know about a computer", I'm pointing out that you're leaving something out.

It was a perfectly good analogy for the point she was making, made, and went past. You're the only one who tried to carry it forward. Analogies aren't designed to be wholly comprehensive, and expecting them to be is holding your "opponent" to an unreasonable standard, and is yet another hallmark of dishonest debating technique.

"But you just proved you supported my belief that it's a choice. He had doubts. When you start to doubt something how can you believe in it?"

Ah, but his doubt's weren't by choice. As in the case of anyone who has passed through belief and into disbelief, the doubts arose of their own. Something stopped making sense. Something felt wrong. He didn't choose to stop believing. And you're right in one regard; even if presented with facts, with evidence, some people will still believe. But what I'm trying to get across is that it's not a conscious choice to believe. I can no more bring myself to believe in God than you can bring yourself to believe in trolls.

And for the record, when I began to doubt, I still believed. I thought that my doubts would be resolved somehow by God. Instead, my studies led me to disbelief.

See, this works for you. But other people don't operate the same way you do. A statistical sample of one (even two) among six billion (and counting) isn't valid. I find your arguments valid as far as they go for you, but as universals? Lacking.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

Belief is a choice. Otherwise parents wouldn't need to raise kids up to believe in a certain religion, and even then without constant reinforcement they can convert to other religions or opt to not believe at all.

You yourself would most likely change your belief if there was irrefutable proof of a higher power presented to you.

 

[Mr Master]

Saw this tagline on Oglaf.com:

"Looking for a god who won't discriminate by creed."

Now, if they want to discriminate against Creed, feel free...

 

[Tathariel]

Dwah? Trolling? I apologize if it came off that way, it was not my intention at all.
All of your posts however, have enlightened me.
I just wanted to give my perspective on the subject.
I'll stay out of this from now on...considering anything not considered a "fact" is quickly shot down by all of your logical, scientific minds. Oh well, I can't blame you. Like MM said, what seems natural to myself and others, sounds stupid and idiotic to you.

Have fun ganging up and verbally bashing everyone happens to be slightly religious, ya fucks.

 

[Nihilistic_Impact]

Tath, the only person we're bashing at the moment just happens to be an agnostic-atheist.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

Dwah? Trolling? I apologize if it came off that way, it was not my intention at all.
All of your posts however, have enlightened me.
I just wanted to give my perspective on the subject.
I'll stay out of this from now on...considering anything not considered a "fact" is quickly shot down by all of your logical, scientific minds. Oh well, I can't blame you. Like MM said, what seems natural to myself and others, sounds stupid and idiotic to you.

Have fun ganging up and verbally bashing everyone happens to be slightly religious, ya fucks.

Whoa, what? I seriously thought this was a discussion.

I bolded that for a reason. My mom is religious but I don't gang up on her, nor do I gang up on my friends who go to church every sunday because they get in trouble with their parents. I don't argue/bash their parents for having religion as part of their daily lives. I don't have to "defend" myself, but what? You're saying we're bashing "slightly religious" people because..? What? We have nothing better to do? I saw this as a pure argument/discussion.

Just because what you believe in is something I don't believe in doesn't mean I'll try to shove my ideal down your throat nor should you do the same.

I mean my logical, scientific brain can only take so much.​

 

[Mr Master]

Tath, I didn't mean to give offense, and if I have, I'm sorry. I came off harsh, but really, I think that's because I was confused. I just didn't understand what you were saying, I didn't see how it was relevant, and, frankly, you have this tendency to waltz in and be like "let's kick up some shit LOL" and just say something. When you do that, you're good natured, but it's distracting. I thought your contributions were this kind of thing, because I didn't see how they fit into the discussion as a whole. I'm sorry I didn't take more time to view them as seriously as you intended. I mean, making a joke to introduce a topic is good, but I didn't get past the joke to see how you might have meant something serious afterward.

So, I apologize.

 

[Tathariel]

Accepted, I was at fault too.

I shouldn't have started with something that sounded like a joke and expected to be taken seriously.

Anyway, get back to your discussion lol. It's interesting.

 

[Kawamura]

"That right there makes no sense. Gravity was proven to exist. Trolls? really? you're gonna go with trolls?"

Incorrect. Gravity is a theory. Anyone throwing around the proof-bomb doesn't know modern science; all we have are theories. After all, we may find something tomorrow that better explains the attraction between masses than gravity does. We accept gravity as true because that theory fits all available evidence. As for trolls, what's so crazy about that? Is it truly harder to believe in trolls than an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving guy in the sky?

Actually, gravity, as far as I know, is both theory and fact. There's the fact of gravity, which is that we see masses interacting, and the theory behind how that works.

And theories aren't "we aren't sure". Theories are hypotheses that have evidence behind them. A lot of evidence. And no conflicting evidence. Theories are more like models, as far as I know, than 'maybes'.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

"That right there makes no sense. Gravity was proven to exist. Trolls? really? you're gonna go with trolls?"

Incorrect. Gravity is a theory. Anyone throwing around the proof-bomb doesn't know modern science; all we have are theories. After all, we may find something tomorrow that better explains the attraction between masses than gravity does. We accept gravity as true because that theory fits all available evidence. As for trolls, what's so crazy about that? Is it truly harder to believe in trolls than an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving guy in the sky?

Actually, gravity, as far as I know, is both theory and fact. There's the fact of gravity, which is that we see masses interacting, and the theory behind how that works.

And theories aren't "we aren't sure". Theories are hypotheses that have evidence behind them. A lot of evidence. And no conflicting evidence. Theories are more like models, as far as I know, than 'maybes'.

Theories in science are completely different than regular theories. It's not an "I think maybe this could possibly be it but I'm not really sure." It's more of an "Well, lets test it and if nothing proves it wrong so far, it's a theory until otherwise proven." Science is quite flexible with these things and it takes a hell of a lot for something to become a theory much less a scientific fact.​

 

[Kawamura]

"That right there makes no sense. Gravity was proven to exist. Trolls? really? you're gonna go with trolls?"

Incorrect. Gravity is a theory. Anyone throwing around the proof-bomb doesn't know modern science; all we have are theories. After all, we may find something tomorrow that better explains the attraction between masses than gravity does. We accept gravity as true because that theory fits all available evidence. As for trolls, what's so crazy about that? Is it truly harder to believe in trolls than an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving guy in the sky?

Actually, gravity, as far as I know, is both theory and fact. There's the fact of gravity, which is that we see masses interacting, and the theory behind how that works.

And theories aren't "we aren't sure". Theories are hypotheses that have evidence behind them. A lot of evidence. And no conflicting evidence. Theories are more like models, as far as I know, than 'maybes'.

Theories in science are completely different than regular theories. It's not an "I think maybe this could possibly be it but I'm not really sure." It's more of an "Well, lets test it and if nothing proves it wrong so far, it's a theory until otherwise proven." Science is quite flexible with these things and it takes a hell of a lot for something to become a theory much less a scientific fact.​

Facts are to theories as words are to books.

Sorta.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

Facts are to theories as words are to books.

Sorta.

More or less.​

 

[Alex]

As I said- I never said it didn't have instincts so cut that out. And of course it can't survive alone, but I was comparing it to other social animals who develop much quicker. Monkeys are very closely related to us but they also develop quicker than we do as well. I was saying that human beings are a weaker species than other animals and that humans don't have all the instincts at the ready like other animals do.​

Off topic a bit, but human beings adapt and survive in environments more often than any other animal; we can go from being in sunny and warm Florida to living in Alaska with little problems, though some can argue that with personal preferences. xD

That being said, human beings have plenty of instincts; the chemicals to breed do not come from nothing, it comes from our biology to bear offspring, like any other animal. Our instincts may not be as sharp as animals due to the years of not needing them as much as we used to anymore, however, we have no natural predators nor do we have to worry about a lack of food or water supply and if we really want offspring, it's not hard to find someone to bear children with. Though, there are still people who will buy that shiny red mustang to get ogled by females, but male animals do that as well; that's why they tend to be more colorful in the wild than the females, so they can attract a mate.

The instinct of something being predator-like has been theorized to be in our subconscious. The depictions of dragons through the years in societies that have never even been introduced to each other until many, many years afterward is said to be part of that subconscious instinct of a predictor that we know to fear, even if dragons did not exist in that era.

Our lifespan has expanded from the past fifty years alone from wanting to live healthier and cleaner and if that's not the crucial instinct to survive itself, I don't know what is. We've adapted with morals and prosperity to the point of needing little instincts to survive, anymore.

 

[Hahvoc The Decepticon]

As I said- I never said it didn't have instincts so cut that out. And of course it can't survive alone, but I was comparing it to other social animals who develop much quicker. Monkeys are very closely related to us but they also develop quicker than we do as well. I was saying that human beings are a weaker species than other animals and that humans don't have all the instincts at the ready like other animals do.​

Off topic a bit, but human beings adapt and survive in environments more often than any other animal; we can go from being in sunny and warm Florida to living in Alaska with little problems, though some can argue that with personal preferences. xD

That being said, human beings have plenty of instincts; the chemicals to breed do not come from nothing, it comes from our biology to bear offspring, like any other animal. Our instincts may not be as sharp as animals due to the years of not needing them as much as we used to anymore, however, we have no natural predators nor do we have to worry about a lack of food or water supply and if we really want offspring, it's not hard to find someone to bear children with. Though, there are still people who will buy that shiny red mustang to get ogled by females, but male animals do that as well; that's why they tend to be more colorful in the wild than the females, so they can attract a mate.

The instinct of something being predator-like has been theorized to be in our subconscious. The depictions of dragons through the years in societies that have never even been introduced to each other until many, many years afterward is said to be part of that subconscious instinct of a predictor that we know to fear, even if dragons did not exist in that era.

Our lifespan has expanded from the past fifty years alone from wanting to live healthier and cleaner and if that's not the crucial instinct to survive itself, I don't know what is. We've adapted with morals and prosperity to the point of needing little instincts to survive, anymore.

Quite off topic. I said the best thing humans have going for them is their intelligence. Human beings kill off other predators such as wolves and bears because of being threatened- but humans can't do this with just their bodies. Human beings are a weak species physically- mentally we are only superior. Humans have instincts- As I have said repeatedly and have never said otherwise. Humans are social animals and only learn from society. Yes, we have morals and whatnot- which in the animal world can be considered a hindrance. Most humans have the flight response- which is a prey instinct. Humans are the type of animals that are more prone to fear because they don't experience the need to defend themselves from actual predators on a constant basis. If a human being was placed in the forest with plenty of predators and prey alike- they would be somewhere in the middle of that food chain and not at the top. Relativity is relative. Fearing creatures that are physically superior is prey instinct which can attest to the drawings of dragons- a beast that can fly, breathe fire, and is physically much stronger is very scary indeed. Because of this, it should be destroyed lest they be destroyed first. It's the natural order of things- kill or be killed by any means necessary. Humans adapt- since humans don't have claws or very sharp teeth, they adapted to that and made weapons and set traps, etc. But without these things, humans are weak creatures. But smart- and that's the saving grace.

EDIT: Why the hell did you suddenly bring up breeding? I'm quite curious. Obviously it's in our biology to reproduce but that wasn't even what was being discussed.​

 

[Alex]

Quite off topic. I said the best thing humans have going for them is their intelligence. Human beings kill off other predators such as wolves and bears because of being threatened- but humans can't do this with just their bodies. Human beings are a weak species physically- mentally we are only superior. Humans have instincts- As I have said repeatedly and have never said otherwise.

Well, you did bring up the whole topic from the get-go.

I never said you stated that. My post was directed at the fact that you said, "I was saying that human beings are a weaker species than other animals and that humans don't have all the instincts at the ready like other animals do." and I brought up details that could discuss otherwise. I never even mentioned what you did or did not say anywhere in my post. All I did was post the details, which I guess made you assume otherwise.

Humans are social animals and only learn from society.

This is an incorrect statement, because humans learn from expience, not society by itself. Learn from mistakes and grow; that is how humans learn. A human by themself can learn how to hunt, fend for themselves, and learn by themselves. It's been done before and to this day it is still happening.

Yes, we have morals and whatnot- which in the animal world can be considered a hindrance. Most humans have the flight response- which is a prey instinct. Humans are the type of animals that are more prone to fear because they don't experience the need to defend themselves from actual predators on a constant basis. If a human being was placed in the forest with plenty of predators and prey alike- they would be somewhere in the middle of that food chain and not at the top. Relativity is relative.

Odd, because most of the humans that were placed in the very same scenario you mentioned have triumphed. Even if we don't have claws or sharp teeth, for as long as human beings have been alive, we have made primitive weapons and tools to compensate for that, just like chimpanzees like you mentioned earlier. The will to live is the most vital instinct, for that is the driving force for the brain. Take that away, and even an animal is utterly hopeless. Our brain has incomprehensible abilities to get over fear and fear itself is what can drive a human being to overcome great obstacles. Even large predators. As I've mentioned earlier, "a human by themself can learn how to hunt, fend for themselves, and learn by themselves. It's been done before and to this day it is still happening."

Relativity is relative. Fearing creatures that are physically superior is prey instinct which can attest to the drawings of dragons- a beast that can fly, breathe fire, and is physically much stronger is very scary indeed. Because of this, it should be destroyed lest they be destroyed first. It's the natural order of things- kill or be killed by any means necessary. Humans adapt- since humans don't have claws or very sharp teeth, they adapted to that and made weapons and set traps, etc. But without these things, humans are weak creatures. But smart- and that's the saving grace.

Exactly as I've mentioned. However, animals have been proven to use tools as well for their advantage. It's not just humans who think outside of the box. And while you bring up a good point that it's killed or be killed, humans for years have only killed animals that are weaker in order to get some food. Animals are the very same, which shows something.

EDIT: Why the hell did you suddenly bring up breeding? I'm quite curious. Obviously it's in our biology to reproduce but that wasn't even what was being discussed.

Breeding is more of an animal instinct itself. That's why females go into heat; not because they, say for example, "want" to have offspring. It's their instincts that drive them to breed, even if it hurts them in the process. There are very few animals that have sex for pleasure; it's pure instinct to want to breed.

That being said, you're the one who brought up instincts in the first place. Breeding is a part of that animal instinct, which humans clearly have, which is something that you should consider. If you bring up one type of instinct, it opens up the fact to bring up other's to actually discuss the notions.