Man is not an animal

[YoursTrue]

Actually these forums helped convince me of that.
People have been taught that they are the center of the universe, it's a way our society is set up now, from kindergarten through college. To believe in something bigger than yourself is a scary thing.

I have also gained perspective on the ToE as discussed here. I have read that science journals will dismiss articles by those they determine to be not particularly promoting the theory. Just as clearly at least one person here continues to tell me I'm uneducated, blah blah, without offering ANY cogent backup of his posits. Except to tell me how stupid (uneducated) I am.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You're still avoiding the point.

And gardening and butchering aren't old superstitions. In fact they are things that are still undertaken on much more massive scales than they were in the ancient world.

What point?
People who live close to the Earth almost inevitably believe in God in one form or another.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No it isn't. If you went with what you observed, then you'd go with what people tell you. But you don't do that.

Lol, that's hilarious. You just told me that I go with what people tell me now you tell me the opposite.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sure, all measurements have some error bars. But they are not likely to be so far off that the conclusions fail.

Humans have had writing for only the last 5000 years or so. We have been around for at least 20 times that. That small time period is not representative of what it means to be human.

Y'know, it seems incredible that the closest beings to humans (what are they?) have not felt the need to invent writing, hmm? Gap in genetic makeup you think maybe?

 

[SkepticThinker]

What point?

No wonder you've forgotten the point since you've done everything you can to avoid it.

The point is that we know a ton more about the world we live in than our ancient ancestors did.

People who live close to the Earth almost inevitably believe in God in one form or another.

People who don't understand how things work inevitably create Gods to explain them. Human history shows us this. You don't believe in Odin, right? Why not?

You might have a point if they all beleived in the same God, but they didn't and don't. And besides that, appeals to popularity don't address the veracity of the claim.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lol, that's hilarious. You just told me that I go with what people tell me now you tell me the opposite.

You'd go with what people tell you on this forum about why they don't believe.

Good grief, you really didn't get that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Y'know, it seems incredible that the closest beings to humans (what are they?) have not felt the need to invent writing, hmm? Gap in genetic makeup you think maybe?

Or they don't have the need for it maybe?

You do know that apes can "speak" sign language, right? Go Google Koko the gorilla. Educate yourself.

 

[YoursTrue]

What point?
People who live close to the Earth almost inevitably believe in God in one form or another.

Which is probably why even the nations around Israel had their own gods.

 

[Altfish]

I take vaccines -- to be a scientist one does not have to accept the theory of evolution.

But viruses evolve and we have to develop new vaccines to combat those changes.
So, by taking a vaccine you are taking advantage of something you don't accept.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This thread has a massive problem with definition and strawmen. Some are using a precise, biological definition, others are using various colloquial, culturally based understandings of the term. We've been talking past each other for 145 posts.

Agreed. Absent clearly articulated intensional definitions for terms, most discussions have no hope of being productive or progressing beyond their starting point.

An intensional definition provides "a set of properties such that the term applies to all things having that set of properties, and to nothing else." It is the kind of definition that allows one to say whether a given example meets the criteria or not, such as "belief - anything one considers true" or "belief - anything one considers true without evidence" as in, "Isn't a fact, just a belief." Whichever of these definition one uses, it is not difficult to decide if a given idea meets that individual's definition of a belief. If two people using different definitions don't identify this difference, their discussion will be fruitless, spinning wheels.

There's animal, vegetable and mineral (plus virus and bacterias) - which are you?

Here's a new definition of animal - that which is not mineral or plant. By this definition, coronavirus is an animal unless one want to call it a plant or a mineral.

I suspect that early man was just as intelligent and sophisticated as we are.

Probably. But this is in conflict with the Baha'i doctrine that every so often, a new messenger needs to come along to speak to the people of that age, as if they could not understand today's messages then.

So I guess that would mean that most social norms like rape being immoral are questionable.

This was written in response to, "Popularity is NOT an indicator of truth." Rational ethicists don't receive their morals this way. If your morals are those that others advocate, then you're not doing it right. In my case, I have a moral imperative (utilitarianism, the Golden Rule) that is not the result of reason, but an unshakeable intuition of what is good and right. The application of reason to that intuition generates rules to effect that vision.

If I believe that the most people should have the most resources to pursue happiness, and I do, I automatically support public education and tolerance of the tolerant, for example. I might also have supported alcohol prohibition once in the pursuit of that vision, but I would have learned with the rest of the world that the law had a paradoxical effect that led to less happiness, and would have repealed prohibition also in the pursuit of the utilitarian vision for society. That's the rational part of rational ethics - not the ethical intuition, but how to implement it.

Rape is a no-brainer to a utilitarian. But the argument it is based in a moral intuition that cannot be derived or defended rationally. None can. I can only say what feels right and wrong to me, and why rape is antithetical to that for me. And that wouldn't change even if the majority disagreed and were raping. It's not an opinion derived popular opinion.

We have mapped more of the earth and become more dependent on stuff. It's not a good trade-off.

I think it is. If I didn't, I might be one of those people who lives off the land without technology.

I find that the ideas that characterize modernity, while they do issue in problems of their own, are overshadowed by the fact that these ideas have made life longer, healthier, safer, easier, more comfortable, and more interesting. We can communicate with the modern world instantly. We can visit most of it if we have the time and money. Yes, it is now possible to die in a plane (or car) wreck, but that's a fair trade-off to access to such mobility.

 

[questfortruth]

That wasn't one of the available options.

Not all available options were listed.

Human is not animal, plant, mineral, water, air, ape, angel, God.

 

[metis]

Human is not animal,...

Biologically, that's what we are. Beats the other options.

 

[questfortruth]

Biologically, that's what we are. Beats the other options.

No. For example: bear vs Putin. There is difference: Putin uses toilet paper, bear is naked and does not use it.
Hence, one cannot say, that Putin is identical to an animal. Why? Because Putin is human.
Biologically the human's DNA is different from DNA of any known animal.

 

[Polymath257]

Actually these forums helped convince me of that.
People have been taught that they are the center of the universe, it's a way our society is set up now, from kindergarten through college. To believe in something bigger than yourself is a scary thing.

It seems to me that religion is much more likely to push that idea. It is those who think that their God is special and their belief makes them special that seem to think they are the center of the universe (right next to God).

It seems that NOT believing in God is scary to most believers.

 

[fantome profane]

Biologically the human's DNA is different from DNA of any known animal.

Biologically the bear’s DNA is different from DNA of any known animal

Biologically the dog’s DNA is different from DNA of any known animal

Biologically the cat’s DNA is different from DNA of any known animal

Biologically the squirrel’s DNA is different from DNA of any known animal

Biologically the kangaroo’s DNA is different from DNA of any known animal

should I keep going?

 

[Polymath257]

If you think they're no longer needed you might want to take a look around at society. The people who have kept up on the old skills are looking more and more wise, as our society starts to crumble due to the insane cost of everything. Knowing how to raise a garden and shooting and butcher your own meat, has never been more relevant. Our dependence on technology for everything has made us weak.

Which is true in some ways. Just like having books made us less able to have long stories committed to memory. And just like having agriculture gave us a smaller range of foods.

Technology is always a playoff.

But that doesn't mean that humans 20,000 years ago had any great insights that we do not have today. They knew less about how the universe works and more about how species in their specific area worked.

And, again, the myths they told were partially emotional comfort for the fears they had against the much stronger forces of nature.

 

[Polymath257]

And people today depend on their computers to tell them everything. That's where they get their information about what is happening in the world and if they want to know how something works they Google it... So nobody actually knows anything, except the people who have already had experience with real life skills.
When you are stranded when your electric car breaks down, and your Bic lighter runs out of fuel, you're going to wish you knew some alternative ways to start a fire, BTW.

And before people learned news about the larger world through word of mouth, leading to huge misunderstandings and prejudices. Nobody knew anything then either, outside of a few very limited skills.

And if you carry some potassium permanganate and some glycerin, you can start a fire anywhere you want. And if you are in a rain forest, the fire building techniques will be different than in the Sahara desert.

Ancient skills were simply a different technology based on items closer to hand.

 

[Polymath257]

Y'know, it seems incredible that the closest beings to humans (what are they?) have not felt the need to invent writing, hmm? Gap in genetic makeup you think maybe?

No. Simply a gap in what their environment requires.

We seem to be the first to develop writing. If no other species does so within the next 100 million years, you might have a point.

 

[Secret Chief]

Biologically the bear’s DNA is different from DNA of any known animal

Biologically the dog’s DNA is different from DNA of any known animal

Biologically the cat’s DNA is different from DNA of any known animal

Biologically the squirrel’s DNA is different from DNA of any known animal

Biologically the kangaroo’s DNA is different from DNA of any known animal

should I keep going?

What about the platypus?

 

[Wildswanderer]

The point is that we know a ton more about the world we live in than our ancient ancestors did.

Yes we know that the world is much more complex than the ancients ever would have supposed... We have more evidence for the existence of God.