melcollanero
Member
Don't let fool ourselves. Ego is a big human flaw. We are animals, from the Mammalia class, to be more specific.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are Humans Animals
- Thread starter The Neo Nerd
- Start date
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
You are indeed correct.
But you will find those who reject the standard taxonomical classifications in favour of the biblical "kind" which they cannot give any coherent definition for.
Absolute Zero
fon memories
So did anyone answer the skycrapper question ? Termites certantly but one over us uh Storm ? That pic was so cool. Anyways Humans are animals through and through and with the way some other animals think or do certain things that seem simple but are complex in there on right I wonder who the smartest is ?
apophenia
Well-Known Member
The part that resists "you're just atoms" is the part that knows and feels and cares.
What do atoms know, feel and care about ?
On the subject of gaps, self-awareness is the gap in science. Despite all that science knows and will know, that gap may never be filled with knowledge. (Nor do I think religion can say anything definitive about it). Both religion and scientism deny that there is anything they can't explain.
Hubris and insecurity.
But try telling that to a scientific fundamentalist. I know what they will say - "emergent behaviour". That is scientism's 'god of the gaps'.
Science has filled the gaps enough for some to be satisfied. There will always be more to learn otherwise there would no longer be a need for science.
The reason an organism "feels" the need to feed and do things is due to chemical reactions which we understand very well. There doesn't seem to be anything terribly mysterious about perception. We want it to be mysterious just like that defense mechanism where we try to convince ourselves that we are more than just atoms. Our cells "know" enough to do their job and perception is a must.
tripleog2010
Member
There is no such thing as a human being. I'm not human, I never will be, and I never go to any Hr Department. The system wants you to think you're an animal so you can be treated as livestock.
Very Dumb Government: I'm Not Human!
Very Dumb Government: I'm Not Human!
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Argumentum ad consequentiam.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
How can it be argued we are anything but another species of mammal? Other animals have imposable thumbs, are self-aware, have sex for pleasure, have group identity, have advanced intelligence, have culture and society, are driven by biological impulses, can learn, and many even seem to show emotion. And even though this is late into the thread, we do not have free-will in the typical sense of the word.
And when you look at humans as just another animal, so much of the behavior of others suddenly starts to make sense. And we share well over 90% (I can never remember the exact number) of a genetic similarity to chimpanzees and bonobos, and in many ways our behavior even resembles chimp behavior.
And when you look at humans as just another animal, so much of the behavior of others suddenly starts to make sense. And we share well over 90% (I can never remember the exact number) of a genetic similarity to chimpanzees and bonobos, and in many ways our behavior even resembles chimp behavior.
Last edited:
apophenia
Well-Known Member
I make the kind of remarks that I make in response to a sociological trend, not as any kind of challenge to science.
In other words, my argument is not with science, it is with those who use science in the same way as many (and again, not all) use religion.
There is a personality type which is determined to have 'all the right answers", and not because of genuine scientific curiousity,but out of insecurity. This personality type can manifest as religious or scientific. Such people are obsessive, adversarial, domineering and somewhat neurotic, and above all feel a compulsion to have the answers to every question (not necessarily a deep understanding, just 'the answers').
As I said, such people may choose sience or religion as their crutch (or sword and shield). In recent years there is a decrease in the number who choose religion, and a rising number of irritating scientific fundamentalists, spurred on by the superficial articles on anything and everything on Wikipedia.
Just wanted to clarify that point with you idav, because it is easy to get labelled 'religious' or 'antiscience' when in fact I am drawing attention to a trend of superficiality heavily reinforced by the wikipedia instant expert syndrome.
rageoftyrael
Veritas
If you are religious, no we are not animals. If you aren't religious, we are. Simple as that....
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Depends on the religion. There are many religions, especially tribal, that view humans as a part of nature unlike the notion of humans being above or separate from nature which has dominated much of Western thought.
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
I have never looked at it that way way before and i have to say i agree.
However (there's always a however)
I believe there is a difference.
The conclusion "god did it" is a final answer, you've already got all the answer you need. It's the end of inquiry
The conclusion "emergent property" allows for more inquiry, it's a space holder much like "dark matter".
-Q
chinu
chinu
Except the one who is asking this question, and the one who is thinking to answer this question.
To think this question separates us from them.
Maya3
Well-Known Member
I don't mind wiki but unfortunately not always up to date. God forbid we actually have to hit a library.
I see what your saying about fundamentalism which points to the extremes. Most of time we are somewhere in between.
MissAlice
Well-Known Member
I guess a good question would be what characterizes or qualifies as animals. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure. And then you have us and animals or the comparing of a human to a brutish animal. Frankly I find the intelligence of an animal less brutish then that of a human for an animals doesn't thrive off so much on genocide, wars and resources that are synthetic and damaging to the ecosystem. Tell this to a brutish human and they'll deny their doing or the damage it does world wide not to mention the overpopulation. Maybe one day a brutish species far superior than the animal human will be on top of the food and poaching chain.