questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Not in Christianity. There is difference between dog and human. VERY BIG DIFFERENCE:
-
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!
Man is not an animal
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
There is also a big difference between a pineapple and a banana, but they're still both fruits.
an·i·mal
/ˈanəməl/
noun
- a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
Sounds like humans fit the definition to me.
Yes. If we have a moral intuition that runs through many of us, it ought to manifest as agreement among those who hold it.
Yes, many people seem lost and unhappy, at least in the part of the world I come from, America. The Western Europeans seem to be happier, so the reason for the unhappiness in America may be due to American cultural and not the state of the world. I don't get that dissatisfaction and disconnect coming from our Danish, Canadian, New Zealand, Finnish, Belgian, or Dutch RF participants - just the American ones - so I don't see that as a result of modernity.
Furthermore, the less of modernity in any given culture, the more poverty, ignorance, disease (especially parasitic infection), infant mortality, malnutrition, etc.. affect their lives. When we talk about third world lives, we are talking about people living more like our ancestors, and we rarely wax sentimental about the simplicity of their village lives. We've moved to a village on a mountain lake in country that I call second-and-a-half world (Mexico), since it is more developed than many countries, but noticeably less modern than what most of us grew up with. In many ways, we've gone back in time to a slower time, and are enjoying that.
But we also take advantage of modernity to protect ourselves from the dangers of this life. You'll recall that I claimed that the advances of modernity have made life longer, healthier, safer, more comfortable, and more interesting. Toward that end, we treat our water on the premises with filtration (sediment), irradiation (bacteria), and reverse osmosis (heavy metals and other dissolved toxins), we take prophylactic anti-parasitic drugs twice yearly, and we soak our produce in an iodine solution before eating it.
We like this combination of the past and the present. It is old-world charm and village life as you mentioned (we DO greet one another including strangers when we pass, which is usually on foot), but with the benefits of modernity.
But those are survival skills in a world where people need to make clothes or start fires with sticks. Yes, any of us might find ourselves in a post-apocalyptic setting where those skills become essential again, but unless we are isolated from one another, as long as a few have those skills, we have access to clothes and fire. The skills needed to succeed in modern society are different. Although I could not compete or even survive in Og's cave world, he would not thrive in mine, either. I can't start a fire or hunt and dress an animal, but Og can't read or drive a car. He's better adapted to his world, and I to mine.
People bemoan younger generations not knowing how to use a slide rule or write in cursive, but my generation typically lacks the computer skills their generations possess, which are more relevant today. This is the strength and weakness of ongoing progress, ongoing specialization and division of labor. We become more dependent on others and on technology. Many see only negativity there, but there is also great opportunity.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The dna of each species is different, and we are biologically classified as animals within the science. No wishful thinking on your part can or will change that.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
If we are not animals, how are we biologically ones?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That sentence doesn't make any sense?
Again, biology is a science, not a religion, so the rules are different.
Yes, the world is more complex than they could have imagined. And we know more about it than they did.
But no more evidence for any God has been found. If you disagree, please give a reference for that evidence.
We fit the biological definition of 'animal':
"Animals (also called Metazoa) are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms in the biological kingdom Animalia. With few exceptions, animals consume organic material, breathe oxygen, are able to move, can reproduce sexually, and go through an ontogenetic stage in which their body consists of a hollow sphere of cells, the blastula, during embryonic development. Over 1.5 million living animal species have been described"
Yes, humans are multicellular, eucaryotic organisms that consume organic material, breathe oxygen, are able to move, and can reproduce sexually. We go through a blastula stage in our embryonic development.
So, we are *biologically* animals.
Furthermore, humans are bilaterally symmetric, deuterostomes and vertebrates. Those are all classifications for *animals*.
We also have hair and are warm blooded (so are mammals), have placenta while in the womb and the young can be fed with milk from the mother's body (so we are placental mammals).
Again, these are all characteristics of types of *animals*.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I see no reason to use word animal, when talking about human.
Human can eat, dog can eat, hence, human is biologically animal?? No. He biologically remains human. No need to mix it with animals.
We use the term 'animal' because we have the defining properties of 'animals', which I pointed out above.
It isn't just eating, although that is *one* of the many characteristics we share with *other* animals.
We have the same basic chemistry as other animals; we share blood types with other apes; we have the bones in common with other vertebrates; etc.
To ignore all of those characteristics because of a misguided feeling that animals are 'less' than us doesn't lead to scientifically useful classifications.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Nope. Read the definitions that were provided to you for goodness' sake.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Even if the physiology of human and an animal is nearly 100 percent the same, we can well use word human instead of word animal. This way there can exists angels, as beings, which are superior to humans. Humans are higher than animals (higher in the objective value), animals are higher than plants, plants are higher than minerals, God is higher than angels. And this way the anti-abortion and anti-war movements have a justification: humans are more valuable than plants.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
We aren't as individuals... Having more information at our fingertips doesn't make us knowledgeable... And all it takes is a computer glitch to deny us access. And as someone who's tried to teach people certain skills through email and Messengers, there is "knowing" and then there's experiencing and really knowing which can take years.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
The intricate and complex nature of reality points to a creator God.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Not exactly. Actually all things were created for his pleasure not ours.
The Bible encourages us to marvel at the fact that he notices us at all.
What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? 5. You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. 6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet: 7 all flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field, 8.
"You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”
ppp
Well-Known Member
How does intricacy and complexity point to a creator god?
ppp
Well-Known Member
Definitely a self centered mindset
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
That's just like, your opinion man.
How does not calling humans animals say anything about the existence of angels? (Hint: It doesn't.)
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
If I can Google and find anything I want, then yes, we are as individuals.
You know there are books, right?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Yeah, that's not evidence. It's an assertion.