• 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!

Questions for those of you who believe humans are not animals

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
I'm always puzzled when highly religious individuals insist that humans are not animals. What is your evidence that humans should not be considered animals, and if we are not animals, then what are we? I can think of a zillion anatomical similarities between humans and other mammals. We're smarter of course, but other than that, our anatomy is 99% the same. We also go through embryonic stages that literally depict our evolutionary history. I have never been able to understand the position that humans are somehow distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom. Even if you do not accept the fact of evolution, you should be able to recognize the anatomical similarities that humans share with the rest of the animal kingdom (especially other mammals), and should at the very least believe that your god designed humans using the same basic blueprint as he used for all of the other animals (or mammals, or even more obviously primates). My questions are: How could you possibly believe that humans are not animals, and furthermore, if humans are not animals, how should we be classified?

To me, the nested structure of life is strong empirical evidence for evolution. The fact that animals can so easily be classified based on anatomical similarities points to common ancestry between different species, with more similar species sharing more recent common ancestors than species that differ more greatly in anatomy (in general). Of course there are mountains of other evidences for evolution, but this is the most empirically obvious in my opinion.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I'm always puzzled when highly religious individuals insist that humans are not animals. What is your evidence that humans should not be considered animals, and if we are not animals, then what are we? I can think of a zillion anatomical similarities between humans and other mammals. We're smarter of course, but other than that, our anatomy is 99% the same. We also go through embryonic stages that literally depict our evolutionary history. I have never been able to understand the position that humans are somehow distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom. Even if you do not accept the fact of evolution, you should be able to recognize the anatomical similarities that humans share with the rest of the animal kingdom (especially other mammals), and should at the very least believe that your god designed humans using the same basic blueprint as he used for all of the other animals (or mammals, or even more obviously primates). My questions are: How could you possibly believe that humans are not animals, and furthermore, if humans are not animals, how should we be classified?

To me, the nested structure of life is strong empirical evidence for evolution. The fact that animals can so easily be classified based on anatomical similarities points to common ancestry between different species, with more similar species sharing more recent common ancestors than species that differ more greatly in anatomy (in general). Of course there are mountains of other evidences for evolution, but this is the most empirically obvious in my opinion.

Hey, didn't Trump get criticized for calling people animals?
 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hey, didn't Trump get criticized for calling people animals?

I think the outrage was him insulting animals by comparing MS13 to them. MS13 is much worse than even a rabid animal. No one with a fully functional brain would get mad at the president insulting MS13. But the poor animals don't deserve to be put in the same category as those evil people.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Of course. He was talking about a subset, and meant it in a derogatory sense. Does intent and context not matter any more?

Sure, but is it really derogatory to call people animals? Kind of silly IMO to be offended, regardless of the intent, about something that is true.

If folks want to feel offended by something that is true, nobody can stop them, however no one can stop me from finding humor in the irony of it either.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sure, but is it really derogatory to call people animals? Kind of silly IMO to be offended, regardless of the intent, about something that is true.

If folks want to feel offended by something that is true, nobody can stop them, however no one can stop me from finding humor in the irony of it either.
Once again, context is extremely important. If one is talking about biology it is not derogatory. If one uses the term to insult others or debase them then it is clearly derogatory.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Once again, context is extremely important. If one is talking about biology it is not derogatory. If one uses the term to insult others or debase them then it is clearly derogatory.

Yeah, it's kind of weird that folks allow themselves to be insulted and debased by the truth. "Context is important"...

I say screw context. I've better things to do than feel debased by folks trying to use the truth to insult me.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yeah, it's kind of weird that folks allow themselves to be insulted and debased by the truth. "Context is important"...

I say screw context. I've better things to do than feel debased by folks trying to use the truth to insult me.
You can't understand anything without context. One way that some groups try to lie is to quote out of context. When someone is clearly attempting to insult another that is bad behavior and the people guilty of that need to account for it.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Then why call them humans, please?
Regards

Human (homo sapiens) is a species which is a part of the kingdom Animalia (the animal kingdom)...

...just as...

...horse (equus ferus) is a species of the same kingdom.


There are six taxonomical kingdoms: Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea/Archaeabacteria, and Bacteria/Eubacteria. Do you think humans better fit into one other than Animalia?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
You can't understand anything without context. One way that some groups try to lie is to quote out of context. When someone is clearly attempting to insult another that is bad behavior and the people guilty of that need to account for it.

If understanding context requires me to feel offended by someone else's irrelevant comment, I'll pass. If folks chose not to be offended, what would there be to account for?

I prefer a more natural approach to accountability instead of some punitive concept of accountability. Folks who say enough irrelevant things become themselves irrelevant.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If understanding context requires me to feel offended by someone else's irrelevant comment, I'll pass. If folks chose not to be offended, what would there be to account for?

I prefer a more natural approach to accountability instead of some punitive concept of accountability. Folks who say enough irrelevant things become themselves irrelevant.
Now you are merely repeating your former mistake
 
Top