Are humans animals?

[YmirGF]

Intelligence, free will, tool usage -- all irrelevant. All Continua (?), None exclusive to hominids.

Taxonomy is a question of genetics and physiology, not which traits are better developed in which species.
We are not rocks. We aren't plants or fungi. We are animals. We have normal, unremarkable animal anatomy and physiology. Our genetic relationship to other animals is well estblished.

How is this even an issue?

Thank you, Seyorni. It's always nice when you share your wisdom.

 

[Rin]

How is this even an issue?

People commonly use the word animal differently from its scientific usage. There is no monopoly on language and insisting on a particular definition, not that I am accusing anybody of doing so, is at best perverse and at worse intellectually dishonest.

In many dictionaries, you will see 1 definition that includes humans and 1 definition that excludes humans. Here are several examples.

So whilst things like free will, tool usage and intelligence are irrelevant to definition number 1, they are not to definition number 2.

 

[YmirGF]

People commonly use the word animal differently from its scientific usage. There is no monopoly on language and insisting on a particular definition, not that I am accusing anybody of doing so, is at best perverse and at worse intellectually dishonest.

In many dictionaries, you will see 1 definition that includes humans and 1 definition that excludes humans. Here are several examples.

So whilst things like free will, tool usage and intelligence are irrelevant to definition number 1, they are not to definition number 2.

I did clarify the usage in post #22.

I am meaning "animal" in the context of being a member of the animal kingdom, more specifically the branch known as primates.

 

[Buttons*]

Rubbish, my dear sweet Poowhawa. That is simply speculation on your part.

It's just like any other speculation It's just as silly to assume that animals do have the divine spark as to assume they don't. I actually do think animals DO have the capacity to be one with all, but that the awareness of that fact is something that seems to be human. Animals don't seem to cry or suffer existential crises like people do. At least, not that we can tell. So any assumption is fair game, really.

I understand what the point you are trying to make, however the rub is that you do not know for a fact that animals do not have a similar capacity. You are simply assuming that they do not. Yes, I agree that we are a remarkable species of primates but are we really much more remarkable than a Meerkat? Are we really much more remarkable than a dolphin? A cockroach?

I know, it is a gross assumption. Not without its complications either! Because I feel that animals are completely connected to this divine, the One. Humans are the only animals that can separate themselves from what it is to simply "be" ... and in this way, I think we're non-animal. It's taken me a while to remember my point. I'm sorry about that! We tend to forget and get lost in our thoughts - this is a very human thing. We make excuses for the reasons we do things that are or are not expected of us. We make expectations. We write, we create, we (can sometimes) cure, we build, we reconstruct, we understand, we connect, we disconnect, we love, we feel a wide range of emotion and enjoy expressing it.

These are things that are most obviously human. And in some way, we are non-natural and non-animal. (The assumption is that animals are always natural, and are complete in their divinity, they don't seek it like we do.) So, while we are all connected, have similar biology in some cases, all experience the extrodinary circumstance that is life, and we all coexist, this is really the core similarity we share. But, the One is in all things, it is in nothing... it is everything/nothing also! TO even dream of understanding this, people must first understand what it is to "BE" but since we do not, and we are not like animals in that way, it takes us a MUCH longer time to get there. We go through many non-animal parts to become whole and natural again.

 

[YmirGF]

It's just like any other speculation It's just as silly to assume that animals do have the divine spark as to assume they don't. I actually do think animals DO have the capacity to be one with all, but that the awareness of that fact is something that seems to be human. Animals don't seem to cry or suffer existential crises like people do. At least, not that we can tell. So any assumption is fair game, really.

I wouldn't go quite as far as saying ANY assumption is fair game, but certainly, any intelligent hypothesis, for sure.

I know, it is a gross assumption. Not without its complications either! Because I feel that animals are completely connected to this divine, the One. Humans are the only animals that can separate themselves from what it is to simply "be" ... and in this way, I think we're non-animal.

I understand the sense that you are meaning this, but my overall perception is that the seeming separation is non-existent.

It's taken me a while to remember my point. I'm sorry about that! We tend to forget and get lost in our thoughts - this is a very human thing. We make excuses for the reasons we do things that are or are not expected of us. We make expectations. We write, we create, we (can sometimes) cure, we build, we reconstruct, we understand, we connect, we disconnect, we love, we feel a wide range of emotion and enjoy expressing it.

These are things that are most obviously human. And in some way, we are non-natural and non-animal.

(The assumption is that animals are always natural, and are complete in their divinity, they don't seek it like we do.) So, while we are all connected, have similar biology in some cases, all experience the extrodinary circumstance that is life, and we all coexist, this is really the core similarity we share. But, the One is in all things, it is in nothing... it is everything/nothing also! TO even dream of understanding this, people must first understand what it is to "BE" but since we do not, and we are not like animals in that way, it takes us a MUCH longer time to get there. We go through many non-animal parts to become whole and natural again.

You are a very perceptive munckin, Ash. Extrapolate on what you are saying here. Do you understand why I use the term human animal?

 

[Gharib]

I understand what the point you are trying to make, however the rub is that you do not know for a fact that animals do not have a similar capacity. You are simply assuming that they do not. Yes, I agree that we are a remarkable species of primates but are we really much more remarkable than a Meerkat? Are we really much more remarkable than a dolphin? A cockroach?

you bet, a dolfin is a friendly creature, the meerkats live in tribes and care for eachother, a cockroach is so filthy it carries diseases.

what about them, can you elaborate your point on why you used them animals as an example?

 

[Gharib]

I repeat my question from yesterday, Eselam, "Why does it follow that because we create, that we were created?" Answer that in a realistic, logical way and I may try to answer your innocent musings.

well no thats not right, you statement i mean. this one "Why does it follow that because we create, that we were created?". no one has created god, he exists from nothing (no one knows how god has come to existence, but he does exist from himself, nothing created god, if it did then he would not be a god). so the notion you speak of isn't necessarily true. but we as humans do not have such powers, and nothing else has them, not chance, not probability.

god was not created from anything, and yet he created us, we as humans use our brains to create, nothing can come to existence from nothing appart from god.
if you thin otherwise, then why did we have to build cars and change them over the years, why didn't cars just magically exists ever since the first human existed, so that we would be able to say that things do come to existence by itself.
but god states that nothing is like him, therefore, if we came to existence by not being created, then we would be like god, meaning there would be no god.

 

[McBell]

well no thats not right, you statement i mean. this one "Why does it follow that because we create, that we were created?". no one has created god, he exists from nothing (no one knows how god has come to existence, but he does exist from himself, nothing created god, if it did then he would not be a god). so the notion you speak of isn't necessarily true. but we as humans do not have such powers, and nothing else has them, not chance, not probability.

god was not created from anything, and yet he created us, we as humans use our brains to create, nothing can come to existence from nothing appart from god.
if you thin otherwise, then why did we have to build cars and change them over the years, why didn't cars just magically exists ever since the first human existed, so that we would be able to say that things do come to existence by itself.
but god states that nothing is like him, therefore, if we came to existence by not being created, then we would be like god, meaning there would be no god.

so everything is created except the creator?
You do realize how asinine this is when applied to us creating cars, but then not being applicable to God, right?

 

[YmirGF]

Against my better judgment, I will endeavour to address the frivolity of your alleged points.

well no thats not right, you statement i mean. this one "Why does it follow that because we create, that we were created?". no one has created god, he exists from nothing (no one knows how god has come to existence, but he does exist from himself, nothing created god, if it did then he would not be a god). so the notion you speak of isn't necessarily true.

So which is it, Eselam. You say, “Thats not right” and “isn't necessarily true”. One comment is definitive; whereas the second comment is waffling. Given that they appear in the same paragraph, (i.e. in the same thought), is indicative of the fact that you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

but we as humans do not have such powers, and nothing else has them, not chance, not probability.

Allowing for your manifest ignorance I would ask you to think of people whom we called artists. As an artist myself, I can attest to the simple fact that I form an idea, which I then render into physical terms that other human animals, such as myself, can appreciate and understand. In essence, I created the work of art from out of nothing (the idea). It does not matter a wit that I did not create the materials used to produce my work of art. It is not relevant to the actual process which IS turning an idea, a non-physical construct, into something concrete that others can see. THIS IS A FORM OF CREATION that cannot be denied by any serious method. To deny that this is an act of creation is nothing short of intellectual bankruptcy.

god was not created from anything, and yet he created us, we as humans use our brains to create, nothing can come to existence from nothing appart from god.

Your error here, Eselam is that you do not personally know this to be true. You are simply parroting words you cannot think beyond and because you can’t think beyond them, you ASSUME that no one else can. Just because you cannot see the obvious boundaries of such thinking does not mean that those boundaries do not exist. Some might tell you to try to think “outside the box” whereas human animals like me are trying to tell you that there are no boxes, save those, you alone, CREATE.

if you thin otherwise, then why did we have to build cars and change them over the years, why didn't cars just magically exists ever since the first human existed, so that we would be able to say that things do come to existence by itself.

What you utterly fail to grasp, Eselam, is that the car, as we know it, is the result of thousands and thousands of ideas that people created over time. The car evolved from former designs of conveyance arguably starting with the invention of the wheel. This is similar to how man evolved, only in that case, the “designer” was adaptation. Adaptation does not require god to work.

but god states that nothing is like him, therefore, if we came to existence by not being created, then we would be like god, meaning there would be no god.

So, god personally told you this? Eselam, the reason why this idea doesn’t make sense to you is because your religious ideas do not allow you to see the sense of it.

It is exactly like the Muslim teachings that the unbeliever has a veil over their eyes (mind) and they cannot see through that veil and perceive the truth beyond it. The reality I am speaking of is working in exactly the same way. You cannot see the sense of this because of the religious veil over your eyes (mind) that inhibits you from seeing the ideas clearly.

I do hope this makes some sense to you, but I won’t be holding my breath that it will.

 

[Valjean]

you bet, a dolfin is a friendly creature, the meerkats live in tribes and care for eachother, a cockroach is so filthy it carries diseases.

what about them, can you elaborate your point on why you used them animals as an example?

"Remarkableness" has nothing to do with taxonomy, eselam. Everything's remarkable in its own way.

...and cockroaches are clean insects. People are disgusted by them only because they often live in our homes in considerable numbers. They're not the filthy, disease-carrying vermin people believe them to be.

[well, someone's got to stand up for them....]:run:

 

[darkendless]

"Remarkableness" has nothing to do with taxonomy, eselam. Everything's remarkable in its own way.

...and cockroaches are clean insects. People are disgusted by them only because they often live in our homes in considerable numbers. They're not the filthy, disease-carrying vermin people believe them to be.

[well, someone's got to stand up for them....]:run:

We probably carry more potential diseases under our fingernails.

Cockroaches are only dirty to a bunch of albino kids who have never been outside to face the world.

 

[Gharib]

so everything is created except the creator?

i hope you are sarcastic with this.

You do realize how asinine this is when applied to us creating cars, but then not being applicable to God, right?

OMG, you were serious. so then how did we become the creators (created cars) when life as we know it came about by chance? we create but we were not created, we just happened to pop out of thin air.

 

[Gharib]

Intelligence, free will, tool usage -- all irrelevant. All Continua (?), None exclusive to hominids.

would you mind sharing your ideas of what is relevant?

Taxonomy is a question of genetics and physiology, not which traits are better developed in which species.

well humans are the most developed species. look i'm not making this up. you have a brain so use it. think about it, out of all the creatures in the world we are the only comaders, everything must conform to us, we change the geographical ways (the land) we change everything, if it doesn't suit us we get rid of it. why don't you see a human being a slave to s cow?

We are not rocks. We aren't plants or fungi. We are animals. We have normal, unremarkable animal anatomy and physiology. Our genetic relationship to other animals is well estblished.

we aren't animals either. you forgot to put an "n" and " 't" on there.

ok so you and i would differ if you had 2 arms and i had one would we?

How is this even an issue?

what isn't an issue?

 

[Gharib]

Against my better judgment, I will endeavour to address the frivolity of your alleged points.

oh you changed your mind after all

So which is it, Eselam. You say, “Thats not right” and “isn't necessarily true”. One comment is definitive; whereas the second comment is waffling. Given that they appear in the same paragraph, (i.e. in the same thought), is indicative of the fact that you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

well it is both, it just depends on to whom you are reffering, us humans or god. if god then it is not true, but us humans it is true, your statement i mean. so it is both.

have i told you that it is wrong to assume things?

Allowing for your manifest ignorance I would ask you to think of people whom we called artists. As an artist myself, I can attest to the simple fact that I form an idea, which I then render into physical terms that other human animals, such as myself, can appreciate and understand. In essence, I created the work of art from out of nothing (the idea).

yeah, so you had to think about it, still it came to existence from you by thinking about it. where as god needs not to think, if god thought this is right this is wrong, he would not be a god. he knows the future and the past, so he needs not to think, and if he couldn't see the future or the past, he could not be a god either.
i knew you weren't going to take me serious if i mentioned god. i think i just contradicted my own statemnt about assumption.

It does not matter a wit that I did not create the materials used to produce my work of art. It is not relevant to the actual process which IS turning an idea, a non-physical construct, into something concrete that others can see. THIS IS A FORM OF CREATION that cannot be denied by any serious method. To deny that this is an act of creation is nothing short of intellectual bankruptcy.

i sort of don't get this statement. could you tell me what your point is in it?

Your error here, Eselam is that you do not personally know this to be true. You are simply parroting words you cannot think beyond and because you can’t think beyond them, you ASSUME that no one else can.

ok then lets have it your way, why does god not exist, how did you come to that conclusion?
if you create a painting and someone says it came to existence by tiself, then that person is either joking or is just plain dumb. this is what your are saying at the moment.

Just because you cannot see the obvious boundaries of such thinking does not mean that those boundaries do not exist. Some might tell you to try to think “outside the box” whereas human animals like me are trying to tell you that there are no boxes, save those, you alone, CREATE.

???? can you explain this in a not so complicated way?

i think you were right when you said i would not be able to understand. wow i just agree with you, something's going to die.

What you utterly fail to grasp, Eselam, is that the car, as we know it, is the result of thousands and thousands of ideas that people created over time.
The car evolved from former designs of conveyance arguably starting with the invention of the wheel. This is similar to how man evolved, only in that case, the “designer” was adaptation. Adaptation does not require god to work.

yes you are right. we were looking after it (we were making the designs) so tell how did we evolve from monkeys if nothing looked after us? if we created that car or if it came to existence by itself, then how would it evolve? how would it know that it needs to evolve to something else?

So, god personally told you this? Eselam, the reason why this idea doesn’t make sense to you is because your religious ideas do not allow you to see the sense of it.

no he told this to everyone, i's in the quran.

It is exactly like the Muslim teachings that the unbeliever has a veil over their eyes (mind) and they cannot see through that veil and perceive the truth beyond it. The reality I am speaking of is working in exactly the same way. You cannot see the sense of this because of the religious veil over your eyes (mind) that inhibits you from seeing the ideas clearly.

nope, i have nothing infront of me, i can see just fine, you prove to me your points and i'm all ears.

I do hope this makes some sense to you, but I won’t be holding my breath that it will.

well i didn't understand some of you statements, so i can't really say.

 

[Valjean]

would you mind sharing your ideas of what is relevant?

Our anatomy. Our physiology. Our genetic makeup. Our Natural history.

well humans are the most developed species. look i'm not making this up. you have a brain so use it. think about it, out of all the creatures in the world we are the only comaders, everything must conform to us, we change the geographical ways (the land) we change everything, if it doesn't suit us we get rid of it. why don't you see a human being a slave to s cow?

How are we the "most developed?? And what do you mean by this?
I get the impression you mean "most intelligent," or, "most virulent."

Changing the environment to eliminate other species destroyes our life support system. This isn't advanced. This is the strategy of the bacterium that kills its host and, subsequently, itself.

"Everything must conform to us... we change everything." This is a feature of a failed organism, an infection. Hardly "advanced."
But, of course, irrelevant. A lion is not less an animal just because it can dominate a gazelle.

We have the primitive, five toed digits of a salamander, not the elegant, highly modified (advanced) extremeties of a Horse.
We have a simple, inefficient digestive system. Hardly comparable to the complex, efficient "advanced" system of a cow.
Our senses are nothing to brag about, either. Lots of animals see better, hear better, smell (?:sarcastic ) better than we do.
We can't run very fast or swim very well. Our flight skills are nonexistant.
We're always getting sick. Sharks hardly ever get sick -- and they're "primitive."

How are we the paragon of animals? Our only claim to fame is language and big brains -- neither of which are looking good for our long-term survival. They're biological traits of a particular species of animal.

We are animals cause of our cells, our chemistry, our genetics. Political or engineering prowess does not have anything to do with the issue

we aren't animals either. you forgot to put an "n" and " 't" on there.

Come off it, already! How are we not animals? By every concevable index we are animal! Out ancesters were animals. Our cells are animal. Examine a human and a dog cell under the microscope and where's the essential difference?

ok so you and i would differ if you had 2 arms and i had one would we?

Huh?

what isn't an issue?

Hominids as non-animals.
No biologist disputes this. It's only an issue with religious people who are uncomfortable with the idea that we are not "special," "unique," "exceptional" or "chosen" -- people who's egos are threatened by the concept of insignificance.

 

[Gharib]

Our anatomy. Our physiology. Our genetic makeup. Our Natural history.

well it isn't just them, our genetic make up is similar to everything that has blood so we are all animals know?

would you mind explaining how and our anatomy physiology are similar to the animals? just a brief explanation will do. thanks

How are we the "most developed??

well we are on top of the chain, we are the strongest being even though we are the weakest if you look at our physical strenght. we as humans are the weakest species, we are pray to most animals, but due to our brain we have come to defend ourselves and become the strongest. meaning we are the most advanced. is it not like this?

And what do you mean by this?

the lives of other creatures are just the same everyday, they eat, sleep, thats it.
our lives are the same everyday too, but we can change that when ever we want. we have free will. the animals have been set in motion by god, so they only do their duties every single day just as god has comanded them, well thats untill a human steps in. he makes animals into slaves, makes them work or else get beaten up or killed, etc.

doesn't that put us on top of the chain, ie. make us the most developed species?

I get the impression you mean "most intelligent," or, "most virulent."

you could say i mean all of them, they are all the same, each of them sets us appart from the animals, thats why we are not animals.

Changing the environment to eliminate other species destroyes our life support system. This isn't advanced. This is the strategy of the bacterium that kills its host and, subsequently, itself.

so you do understand what i'm saying. you do know that all animals live in perfect harmony and peace. so then why does all that change when another animal (i'll just say animal to prove that we are not animals) comes into the picture everything changes, we humans destroy things in order to fit our moods, or our likes or what ever you can call it. with us being present the rest of the animals do not have peace and harmony. so why is that? aren't we just another animal species, if so then why is there no peace and harmony and we always seek to expand our teritories everywhere? all animals live in harmony, so why can't we live like them?

"Everything must conform to us... we change everything." This is a feature of a failed organism, an infection. Hardly "advanced."
But, of course, irrelevant. A lion is not less an animal just because it can dominate a gazelle.

and a snake is not less an animal just because it can dominate a lion, or kill it for that matter. se the life cycle of the animals goes round and round, but surprisingly ours doesn't, aren't we animals too, so why do we kill and don't get killed?

We have the primitive, five toed digits of a salamander, not the elegant, highly modified (advanced) extremeties of a Horse.
We have a simple, inefficient digestive system. Hardly comparable to the complex, efficient "advanced" system of a cow.
Our senses are nothing to brag about, either. Lots of animals see better, hear better, smell (?:sarcastic ) better than we do.
We can't run very fast or swim very well. Our flight skills are nonexistant.
We're always getting sick. Sharks hardly ever get sick -- and they're "primitive."

well our brain has made us the best of all them animal. we do not have wings, and yet we are able to fly, a horse does not have wings too but it cannot fly like us.

every creature has been given some special feature, but not so to rule the other creatures like us.

How are we the paragon of animals? Our only claim to fame is language and big brains -- neither of which are looking good for our long-term survival. They're biological traits of a particular species of animal.

no it is our brain specifically that sets us appart from humans, we can do anything simply from our imagination, animals don't have an imagination. and our brain is good for our long term survival, if it weren't humans would be extinct. i did say that we are the weakest creature in terms of physical strength, but it is our brain that makes us the strongest.

We are animals cause of our cells, our chemistry, our genetics. Political or engineering prowess does not have anything to do with the issue

we are trees because of our need to breathe then, right? and animals breathe too, so trees animals and humans all end up being? (you are soposed to give an example of something else, say aliens or something)

Come off it, already! How are we not animals? By every concevable index we are animal! Out ancesters were animals. Our cells are animal. Examine a human and a dog cell under the microscope and where's the essential difference?

and examine the number of cromosomes of a potatoe and a human we both end up having 46, wow we are potatoes then?

Huh?

i take it it's not the best answer you can come up with?

Hominids as non-animals.
No biologist disputes this. It's only an issue with religious people who are uncomfortable with the idea that we are not "special," "unique," "exceptional" or "chosen" -- people who's egos are threatened by the concept of insignificance.

nope wrong, you see everything that scientists do is to contradict religions, there is no god is their policy. and yet the most famous words you would hear a scientist say is "have faith" i though they needed to have proof not faith.

 

[BucephalusBB]

every creature has been given some special feature, but not so to rule the other creatures like us.

This is where you and I differ. I don't view fastest or strongest as special features.
Every animal has a certain speed, strength or intelligence. These differ per species as they are not the same. If a certain attribute differs per specie, this must mean that one or several are highest in that attribute, one or some are lowest and the rest is in between. The chance that one specie has exact the same value as another is smaller than values that differ, specially at the top or bottom. Therefor it is most likelly that one specie is the fastest in this world. One is the strongest and one must be the smartest. The fact that that happens to be us, does not gives us the right to claim to be different from the total of animals. The fact that there is a huge gap between us and the next in line seems obvious to me. Where one is getting raised all the time, the others must be surpressed in one way or another if they are doing battle in the same area.

 

[McBell]

OMG, you were serious. so then how did we become the creators (created cars) when life as we know it came about by chance? we create but we were not created, we just happened to pop out of thin air.

Your argument is that that which creates has to have a creator.
But then you make an exception to your argument when you get to where you want your argument to go, that being God.
When you get to God, you change your tune and say that God is not created.

Make up your mind.
Either that which creates needs a creator or it does not.


I understand that you have to try to confuse the issue with your "came about by chance" nonsense.
And that you are have to try as hard as you can to make it seem that not being created by God is the more 'ridiculous' option.
However, I do understand the argument you are trying to present and I understand that it falls flat on its face.

Please keep in mind that I am not in your choir.

 

[Gharib]

This is where you and I differ. I don't view fastest or strongest as special features.
Every animal has a certain speed, strength or intelligence. These differ per species as they are not the same. If a certain attribute differs per specie, this must mean that one or several are highest in that attribute, one or some are lowest and the rest is in between. The chance that one specie has exact the same value as another is smaller than values that differ, specially at the top or bottom. Therefor it is most likelly that one specie is the fastest in this world. One is the strongest and one must be the smartest. The fact that that happens to be us, does not gives us the right to claim to be different from the total of animals. The fact that there is a huge gap between us and the next in line seems obvious to me. Where one is getting raised all the time, the others must be surpressed in one way or another if they are doing battle in the same area.

ok i will accept what you are saying in one condition;

we are the best at everything, running, strenght, flying etc.

first lets assume that humans are on top, just like you said that some are on top some on the bottom, while i'm saying that humans are on top then the rest are equal. but we'll just agree to your statemnet for now ok

so then who takes our place if we suddenly dissapear?
do the animals who are the fastest?
those who are the strongest?
those who can fly?

which of these animals would be on top of the list after us?

 

[Gharib]

Your argument is that that which creates has to have a creator.

no it deppends on who you are speaking about. god or us humans. i made a similar reply to YmirGF.

But then you make an exception to your argument when you get to where you want your argument to go, that being God.

whats this about?

When you get to God, you change your tune and say that God is not created.

thats right god isn't created. is that a hard thing to take in? i mean could it be harder than saying we came to existence from nothing?

Make up your mind.
Either that which creates needs a creator or it does not.

so are you speaking of god or humans? make up you mind.

I understand that you have to try to confuse the issue with your "came about by chance" nonsense.

why would that be confussing, you guys know that stuff better than me don't you?

And that you are have to try as hard as you can to make it seem that not being created by God is the more 'ridiculous' option.

yes very true. LOL

However, I do understand the argument you are trying to present and I understand that it falls flat on its face.

what exacly might that be? my argument i mean. you lost me here.

Please keep in mind that I am not in your choir.

is that the 3'rd time you've said that to me?