Are Humans Animals Or Not ?

[Valjean]

Not an especially informative criteria, though, is it. As it clearly tells us very little about how we are the way we are. Or why none of the other life forms on Earth are like is.

None of the other species are like orang-utans or chimps, either.

 

[metis]

But I see man as a class in of itself. A being that has a spirit which no other creation has.

But when I look at your avatar picture, I don't see any evidence of advanced life except for maybe the woman standing next to you.

 

[metis]

BTW, how is it possible to know which creatures have "spirits" and which don't? Many people probably believe they have spirits because of consuming spirits.

 

[PureX]

BTW, how is it possible to know which creatures have "spirits" and which don't?

Easy, just ask them!

 

[Kenny]

Each time I read something like this, it makes me sad to know that there are still people that think this way...that man is somehow better or more important than other creatures exist on this planet.

I don’t think “A” then “B” is correct.

It is this sort of thinking that has led to destruction of other animals' habitats and endangerment or extinction of species.

As a Christian, I believe we should take care of this earth. It actually puts more responsibility on mankind to do so.

Genesis 2:15
The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.

Keep it… not destroy it.

For that matter, you don’t need to be religious to destroy animals’ habitats.

This was the first and most significant belief that let me away from Catholicism and Christianity in general.

Interesting. And yet, that isn’t the message at all. How you intertwined the two is an interesting question.

 

[Kenny]

I see man in a species in and of itself, but including birds and fish in the same class.

I understand your position.

"Spirit" seems rather vague and insubstantial; not really a definitive, physical feature.

Yes… it isn’t a physical feature.

 

[Kenny]

Just to be clear: you believe humans to be a class of itself in a religious sense - you don't deny that that humans are animals in a scientific sense?

No, not in a religious sense although it does make mankind spiritual. I mean in the makeup of a human being. Yes, science doesn’t deal with that arena.

 

[Kenny]

But when I look at your avatar picture, I don't see any evidence of advanced life except for maybe the woman standing next to you.

It’s the “God factor” that is next to me.

Let’s be honest, if instead of three wise men visiting Jesus there were three wise women, they would have cleaned the manger up, cooked up a meal, found housing for Joseph and family, made clothes for the baby and there would have been peace on earth.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Easy, just ask them!

Where is the double useful frube, even if such is rather trite. Perhaps when we have deciphered all of non-human communications it might be appropriate to place humans on every pedestal available, but until then - don't be so ******** condescending towards all other life!

 

[leroy]

It has philosophical relevance as we can debate if it makes sense to use any other "vocabulary" than a scientific for that question. And if we use scientific nomenclature the question has a definitive answer, the only question then remains how to teach those who don't get it.

we are what we are, whether if you one wants label us as animals or not is irrelevant, and subjective ……regardless if you believe in evolution or creation (or both) the point is that nether God, nor natural selection “created” organisms with modern 21 Century English vocabulary in mind



1 First organisms appeared on this palnet

2 Then we humans tried to organize them based on some arbitrary criteria

3 then we invent words that describe those clasifications



In this particular time and context , scientists arbitrarily decided that the definition of “animal” includes humans and excludes apples.



that is like asking if a hotdog is a sandwich or not, it simply depends on how you personally and subjectively define words

 

[leroy]

It has a very specific scientific definition and biological relevance. It also has philosophical and æsthetic relevance. I might refer to a terrorist as an animal, without any taxonomic implication.

Modern Scientists arbitrarily decided to define “animal” such that it includes “humans”

Politicians and law makers define animals as something that excludes humans, (when they talk about taxes when importing animals, they obviously don’t include humans)

We in our daily life, we usually define animal as something that excludes humans

In a religious context , animals are defined as something that excludes humans

Etc.

Definitions are arbitrary and subjective............But since in the majority of cases, we use the term “animal” as something that doesn’t include humans………ill say that generally specking it is correct to say that we are not animals

 

[Eddi]

And if so or not why ? I personally think that humans share lots of similar things to animals but I also know that there are things that separate us from animals so to me it would seem that humans are part animal and part higher than animal.

Humans are animals who can live in civilizations

 

[Alekdar]

And if so or not why ? I personally think that humans share lots of similar things to animals but I also know that there are things that separate us from animals so to me it would seem that humans are part animal and part higher than animal.

We certainly differentiated ourselves from the rest of "animals" but we still a lot in common, we have language, culture, sexual dimorphism...
What would be that part "Higher" (i dont know what it means ) than animals? and why?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We certainly differentiated ourselves from the rest of "animals" but we still a lot in common, we have language, culture, sexual dimorphism...
What would be that part "Higher" (i dont know what it means ) than animals? and why?

There is an incredible discussion on this topic by Prof. Robert Sapolsky, "Are Humans Just Another Primate?"

 

[stvdv]

And if so or not why ? I personally think that humans share lots of similar things to animals but I also know that there are things that separate us from animals so to me it would seem that humans are part animal and part higher than animal.

The claim "Humans are animals" would be false

 

[metis]

The claim "Humans are animals" would be false

Plants?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The claim "Humans are animals" would be false

How aren't humans animals? We eat like animals. Sleep like animals. Defecate like animals. Have sex like animals. We have physical bodies with hearts and lungs and muscles and brains. Dude, if it walks like a duck...

 

[stvdv]

How aren't humans animals? We eat like animals. Sleep like animals. Defecate like animals. Have sex like animals. We have physical bodies with hearts and lungs and muscles and brains. Dude, if it walks like a duck...

"Humans are animals" is a false claim, as humans are more than "just animals". Such a claim would easily belittle our true potential

 

[stvdv]

Plants?

Indeed, it's said "You are what you eat"

My reply was more simple "Humans are animals" restricts humans too much. So, it's not an accurate (correct) description of humans. The word "are" is key here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And if so or not why ? I personally think that humans share lots of similar things to animals but I also know that there are things that separate us from animals so to me it would seem that humans are part animal and part higher than animal.

Yes, humans are animals.

That humans have traits unique to humans, is just what makes them a different species.
Every species has traits unique to them. It's what makes them a species of their own.


Next to animals, we are also
- eukaryotes
- vertebrates
- tetrapods
- mammals
- primates
- ...