I said not all animals, specifically to address this sort of reference. My point being, I do not think it is a matter of only degrees. It is also something that animals either have or do not have. The new research seems to suppport that crows possess reason.

Okay, thank you for letting me know you are not interested.

You are welcome, please, have a good day.

But take the crows that figure things out that are of interest to crows--like fishing a grub floating on water in a tube, but below the level the crow can reach with it's beak... The crow, in this situation, picked up pebbles and dropped them into the tube--raising the water level until the grub was close enough to grab. — Bitter Crank

It would be easy to train them to do that. We have a few parrots and I could probably train them to do that. Do we know for sure that they were not trained?

It would be possible to train a crow, or a parrot to do this, and note, these were banded birds, so... I'm rooting for the crows, but how naive the crows were... don't know. Clearly they weren't all that naive by the time they made their televised debut. Now, IF one observed a crow doing this in a natural setting, that would be more impressive. Like, if you set up this experiment out by a corn field and waited for a crow to land on the platform of the experiment, and it sized things up and proceeded to perform as filmed... Even better would be if the crows found their own pieces of gravel and dropped it into the tube.

Still, birds have been observed using sticks (which they had to "prepare") to spear insects in tree crevices.

The Minnesota DNR has a batch of cameras set up in various places to catch wildlife doing their thing without people being around. One of the cameras observed a wolf fishing. The wolf was beside a typical creek where one would find non-game fish like suckers swimming around. Interestingly, the wolf watched the water, grabbed a sucker, then deposited it on the bank above the water (biting it to kill it). Then it went and repeated the fish capture. It had 5 or 6 not-very-big fish collected before it ate them.

No one has observed wolves fishing, that I know of. Was this a pioneer wolf or is this just previously unobserved behavior? Don't know.

There's been enough videos made of various animals (like squirrels and raccoons) figuring out how to open doors, for instance, and not just by pushing, for us to suppose that they are capable of fairly complex problem solving. Cats and dogs are observed doing some of these sorts of things too.

Disagree. There is living in accordance to reality and there is not living in accordance with reality. Mystics don't live in accordance to reality. They want to live in a way that is impossible. They want to live based on what they feel. Not based on the facts. They want to avoid reality and pretend in a fantasy. You can't pursue life if what you value is life if you are mystical. If you value death then by all means be mystical because death goes hand and hand with mysticism. — AppLeo

Absolute nonsense. Not only is it possible, there are plenty of people who value mysticism and live their lives in accordance with mysticism.

What you say often seems to be misaligned with what you actually express. It needs to be translated. All you actually seem to be expressing here is that it's not an ideal in your eyes and you disapprove of it.

Absolute nonsense. Not only is it possible, there are plenty of people who value mysticism and live their lives in accordance with mysticism. — S

How does mysticism help someone live life and prosper if mysticism cannot get them the facts and actually distorts the facts?

Evidently, not everyone needs "the facts" to live life and prosper. Obviously you need some facts, but mysticism isn't all or nothing. Maybe you just don't understand what mysticism is, and that's what explains why you're making these suggestions which sound absurd. Mysticism wouldn't necessarily prevent one from finding satisfaction, attaining life goals, being a good person, and that sort of thing.

↪AppLeo Evidently, not everyone needs "the facts" to live life and prosper. — S

How?

Obviously you need some facts, — S

So you admit that in order to live and prosper someone needs facts. Finally.

but mysticism isn't all or nothing. — S

What do you mean by that?

Maybe you just don't understand what mysticism is, and that's what explains why you're making these suggestions which sound absurd. Mysticism wouldn't necessarily prevent one from finding satisfaction, attaining life goals, being a good person, and that sort of thing. — S

Well how would you define it? Mysticism is the opposite of reason. It's knowing reality without having to observe and make logical conclusions about your observations.

What do you mean, "finally"? I've never denied that we need some facts, or rather knowledge of them, to get by. I'm not a complete idiot. And that's what my "all or nothing" comment related to: mysticism doesn't mean abandoning all factual knowledge or even all factual knowledge necessary to live a good life. It isn't clear what exactly "the facts" refers to, but I don't agree that a mystic can't live life and prosper simply by virtue of being a mystic. Not only is it possible that at least some of them have sufficient factual knowledge to enable them to live such a life, it's extremely likely.

Even by your definition of mysticism, your claims fail to be true, provided it's not all or nothing, which it isn't in reality. It would be ludicrous to interpret mysticism in the latter way. You'd basically be suggesting that mystics are insane.

Religion has power, and lust for power is all corruption
money=power
strength=power
war=power
religion=power
dirt=not powerful
fork=not powerful
toast=not powerful
So it's not as religion is poison more than power is poison, a piece of toast cannot change the world, but war can, money can and so can religion, it's all to do with a power lust

I think that you're touching on a lot of great points, but it seems to me that the conclusion is off. You made a comment about how even non-religious regimes like the Communist and NAZI movements were still somewhat religious in nature. I agree. But shouldn't we therefore conclude that the real issue is human nature? If human beings are inclined to act irrationally or violently when they have high fervor for an ideology, is that the ideologies' fault? Let's say that all religions, secular and theistic, are made up. Just the ravings of madmen. That means that WE are the problem, because we wrote the dogma that drives us toward evil. Now, if it's the case that human nature is inherently evil, then how can we get people to do good if not with an ideology? It seems to me that there are only 3 possibilities here:

1: Human beings are inherently good. Religion is man-made. Therefore, religion is inherently good.

2: Human beings are not inherently good. Religion is man-made. Therefore, religion is not inherently good.

3: Human beings are not inherently good. Religion comes from God. God is inherently good. Therefore, religion is inherently good.

I'm personally inclined to believe the 3rd. When I think this issue through logically, I can't find justification for anything other than Nihilism on the atheistic/anti-religious worldview.

P.S.
I'm still pretty new to philosophy, and am only now having a real chance to engage in intellectual debate. If there are any arguments that I present that are prima facie illogical, I'd love feedback!