Questions for those of you who believe humans are not animals

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. If aren't going to read far enough in my source (it's clearly under the section "degrees of soul") then I'm just going to assert that "blue and green are the same thing because some languages say so!!" and leave it at that.

Not my job. Not only do you need to link a source, but you also need to quote at least one pertinent passage.

EDIT: Out of curiosity I went to your source and found what you referred to. Once again your source does not support you. Humans are within the set of "all animals" :

"
This gives us three corresponding degrees of soul:

1. Nutritive soul (plants)
2. Sensitive soul (all animals)
3. Rational soul (human beings)"

Or are you saying that humans do not have a "Sensitive soul"?"

 

[Sanzbir]

Your analogies need some serious work.

You're the one trying to apply biological classification systems to a philosophical one.

But then again you wouldn't even read my source,

So blue and green are the same color.

 

[shunyadragon]

Flesh and Blood animals, spiritually humans.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You're the one trying to apply biological classification systems to a philosophical one.

There are those who claim that humans are not animals in the biological sense. I think that is what we are talking about the most.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're the one trying to apply biological classification systems to a philosophical one.

But then again you wouldn't even read my source,

So blue and green are the same color.

Your job was to quote your source. I did go back and you failed again

 

[Sanzbir]

Not my job. Not only do you need to link a source, but you also need to quote at least one pertinent passage.

I'm not about to follow arbitrary rules that you yourself do not follow. If I do you'll just pull a new rule out of your ***.

You whined and demanded a source, I provided it. I'm not going to do this dance of yours. I gave you what you asked for, you can read it or you have basically just conceded that you have lost this argument.

I think that many of them realize that if they admitted to the fact that people are animals that accepting evolution would ultimately follow. When one's beliefs are a house of card they have to avoid even the slightest puff of wind.

Hurrr durrr where's your source and pertinent quotation?!

 

[Sanzbir]

There are those who claim that humans are not animals in the biological sense. I think that is what we are talking about the most.

Show me the person who makes that claim.

I accept they could exist, but the every single person I've met up until this point who thinks there is a difference between "human" and "animal" uses some adaptation of the Aristotlean definitions in their argument.

So please show me the person.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Show me the person who makes that claim.

I can't point to specific instances, but I have had several discussions with creationists where they clearly state that humans are not animals in the biological sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not about to follow arbitrary rules that you yourself do not follow. If I do you'll just pull a new rule out of your ***.

You whined and demanded a source, I provided it. I'm not going to do this dance of yours. I gave you what you asked for, you can read it or you have basically just conceded that you have lost this argument.

I did not whine. I would suggest that you not break the rules of the forum. This is common sense among those that debate on a forum. You really should know this.

Hurrr durrr where's your source and pertinent quotation?!

I provided them. You need to pay attention.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Metacognition. Animals don't have that, we do.

Of course you'll point to "animals" which have metacognition as counter-evidence. Like cats or rats or dolphins or countless other examples.

But those creatures aren't animals either.

Furthermore sea sponges aren't animals, but are plants, and venus fly traps are actually animals.

At least if we're speaking in Aristotlean terms.

Which is the only metric by which I can think of in which to say that we are not animals.

There is no way that you can say with certainty what animals have metacognition, and what animals do not.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Hey, personally I could care less what he says, and I'm not easily offended anyway.

But at the same time...he wasn't in any way discussing taxonomic ranks, so whether what he said is true in THAT sense (whilst perhaps ironic/amusing) doesn't really relate to what he was trying to communicate.

 

[Nakosis]

Hey, personally I could care less what he says, and I'm not easily offended anyway.

But at the same time...he wasn't in any way discussing taxonomic ranks, so whether what he said is true in THAT sense (whilst perhaps ironic/amusing) doesn't really relate to what he was trying to communicate.

Yeah, it was a joke. Don't think we need to spend any more time on it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah, it was a joke. Don't think we need to spend any more time on it.

Yup, fair enough. Agreed.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There is no way that you can say with certainty what animals have metacognition, and what animals do not.

It's actually surprising to say all sorts of things with complete certainty.
Just check out a few of the threads on this very site!!!
(Of course, saying it with certainty and being correct is a different thing...)

 

[Faithofchristian]

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.

as I look around, I can see alot of humans behaving just like animals.

There are animals that will kill their own kind.
There are humans that will kill their own kind.
There are animals that has no regard for other animals life.
There are humans that has no regard for other human life.
There are animals that will kill other animals for no reason at all.
There are humans that will kill other humans for no reason at all.

And so it goes on and on and on ect-----------

 

[Al Ibn Al Amra]

Al Nabi Al 'Aadam AS , who's He AS ?

 

[stvdv]

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.

Advaita teaches: We are consciousness. So we are NOT: body, mind, intellect, emotions, senses, smartness etc.
Seen from that view it's quite obvious. Humans have the abilitiy to realise this truth. Animals don't have this.
So humans are animals until they realize that they are Divine Beings [Realizing NOT meaning just reading it]
[Some great masters teaching this are: Meher Baba, Sai Baba, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, Papaji and many more]
[http://www.shirdisaistories.com/meher-baba-about-shirdi-sai-baba/]

http://www.meherbabadnyana.net/life_eternal/Life_Eternal.html
http://www.meherbabadnyana.net/life_eternal/Book_One/Angels.htm
Here is answered the question: "Now tell me whether you are a man or an animal."

Meher Baba: Some more on animals
http://www.meherbabadnyana.net/life_eternal/Book_One/Animals.htm

 

[paarsurrey]

Advaita teaches: We are consciousness. So we are NOT: body, mind, intellect, emotions, senses, smartness etc.
Seen from that view it's quite obvious. Humans have the abilitiy to realise this truth. Animals don't have this.
So humans are animals until they realize that they are Divine Beings [Realizing NOT meaning just reading it]
[Some great masters teaching this are: Meher Baba, Sai Baba, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, Papaji and many more]
[http://www.shirdisaistories.com/meher-baba-about-shirdi-sai-baba/]

http://www.meherbabadnyana.net/life_eternal/Life_Eternal.html
http://www.meherbabadnyana.net/life_eternal/Book_One/Angels.htm
Here is answered the question: "Now tell me whether you are a man or an animal."

Meher Baba: Some more on animals
http://www.meherbabadnyana.net/life_eternal/Book_One/Animals.htm

It is a good question, I like it.
Regards