• 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 human beings animals?

Do you consider humans to be animals?


  • Total voters
    54

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
It is nice, I'm sure, to just be able to quote a Biblical passage with no accompanying context- but I'm about to show why that is problematic. It first of all, does not show that the Biblical authors believed this was true of animals across a spectrum, as you view it. It also doesn't show they thought humans are not animals.

The word animal is derived from the Latin animus in origin, which refers to an animated creature or form- one that moves. Taken in that way, humans are absolutely animals.

The Church wouldn't have been unaware of the passage you quoted, and so far you've only told me why you think they are no authority on the book they preserved for centuries. Again- no human being in history that I am aware of prior to Descartes, put forth that animals are just automatons devoid of personality or feeling.

Well, Sayak wouldn’t answer, so let me ask you:

If a building caught on fire, and you could only save one life, your beloved pet dog or a human baby you didn't know...... which one would you save?

Hmm?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, Sayak wouldn’t answer, so let me ask you:

If a building caught on fire, and you could only save one life, your beloved pet dog or a human baby you didn't know...... which one would you save?

Hmm?
Rats would save other rats, humans would save other humans. What's the difference?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
But if we really consider ourselves equal to animals, why does society prohibit eating human meat but allow animal meat?
Because we consider ourselves better than other animals, but that does not mean we do not consider ourselves animals.

I consider some mushrooms edible and some inedible. But because I don't consider both types equal does not mean I can not categorize both types as mushrooms.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Do you have amnesia?

No, I dont.

(See? I answer your questions....why can’t you give a straight answer to mine?)

One more time: in my scenario, it comes down to saving something (a dog) you care for, verses something (a human) you don’t even know.

BTW, I searched online for an ethics code that rats follow, but I couldn’t find one.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member

Subash

New Member
Scientifically, humans are considered animals, but many religions and faiths would disagree. What's your opinion?

As far as i know ,, yes humans are animals ,, , that is why we are given knowledge to socialise in understanding our existence and our purposes ....... EveE in our ancanci script animals are socialised with humans, n some taught human to live n respecr each others life's ... Sorry i I don't want to explain furthfur becbecau words ate autautomaticaly turnint into i ddon' wjat word iti is turintu intoi
 

Buddha Dharma

Dharma Practitioner
Well, Sayak wouldn’t answer, so let me ask you:

If a building caught on fire, and you could only save one life, your beloved pet dog or a human baby you didn't know...... which one would you save?

Hmm?

That doesn't answer that humans are not animals. I'd be in a hard position actually because Buddhists aren't speciests. This question is a rather poor attempt on your part though to pigeon hole me into a position.
 

Buddha Dharma

Dharma Practitioner
I'll answer you, but I was hesitant to at first because I suspected you were asking me an entrapping question.

A Buddhist should save the baby, because of where humans stand in the Buddhist view of the cosmos. Not because the human isn't also an animal, or the dog's life has no inherent worth.

Humans are different than other animals in Buddhism, because we have the ability to seek spirituality and pursue the Dharma to attain liberation from Samsara. Buddhist texts say it is hard and rare to attain a human birth. Harder than making flung wet paper stick to the wall, so what a shame humans often waste this life on idleness without study.

As a Buddhist, I think I'm obligated to tell you that because of truth- so I answered you.
 
Last edited:

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
he Bible does comment briefly on this subject
But the fact the serpent and the donkey can speak when given the opportunity shows us animals DO think, but we assume they don't due to language barriers.

You don’t eat human meat
Not on purpose, but with funding cuts to the FDA and everything :p

If a building caught on fire, and you could only save one life, your beloved pet dog or a human baby you didn't know...... which one would you save?
Get the dog to carry the baby. I win. :)

(If I can only save one life, I assume that involves any other able-bodied sentient beings as well, so I save the dog while the dog saves the baby. :) )
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Of course, we're animals. Only delusional ego and pride tries to say otherwise. We're not even "more evolved" since that's not how evolution works and real science doesn't posit ontological hierarchies. We just have complex brains and opposable thumbs which are more conducive to abstract thought and complex tool use, in combination. But that doesn't mean we're the only sapient animal or the only animal that possess abstract thought and the evidence is showing otherwise. We're only special in our own minds.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Well, Sayak wouldn’t answer, so let me ask you:

If a building caught on fire, and you could only save one life, your beloved pet dog or a human baby you didn't know...... which one would you save?

Hmm?
Those kind of questions encourage a form of social conformity since the socially accepted answer is obvious, so I suspect that some aren't being honest when they answer. I'll be honest, though: I'd save my dog because I have more of an emotional connection to my dog than someone I don't know and I don't really have a special emotional affinity for human children (as compared to other age groups). Ideally, I'd strive to save both, though.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Those kind of questions encourage a form of social conformity since the socially accepted answer is obvious, so I suspect that some aren't being honest when they answer. I'll be honest, though: I'd save my dog because I have more of an emotional connection to my dog than someone I don't know and I don't really have a special emotional affinity for human children (as compared to other age groups). Ideally, I'd strive to save both, though.
I appreciate your honesty. (Always have, my friend.)

Hope you're well.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Well I believe that this is rather self evident. :shrug:

If you can read my post and respond as you have, I am left to ponder your ability to make an objective evaluation of the evidence. :confused:
I asked you a pretty straightforward, non-dismissive couple of questions in an entirely polite way.

If you can't answer them, or respond intelligently, I don't see how that represents a failure of my intelligence. It's clearly a failure of your logic.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
We're animals in the sense that we are evolved from animals but mankind has an immortal soul that reflect all of the attributes of God that animals don't have. Animals reflect some of the attributes of God but not all of them.
 
Top