"I am NOT an animal"

[Zzyzx]

.
"I am NOT an animal"

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning that H. sapiens are classified as animals (alternatives being plant and virus). I do not recall ever hearing a Non-Theist object. 1) Is there something about religion that causes this?

You see I am NOT an animal, never was and never in a billion years will I evolve to be one, my family tree all the way back to Adam don't have one ape in it.

2) Why be upset, indignant or in denial about a biological / taxonomic classification?

3) Since humans differ from other animals only in degree (some mental and physical characteristics), what is the objection to recognizing that they are animals?

4) Is anything other than religion (and possibly narcissism) involved?


In the quoted statement someone (whose theological position apparently defies description) claims knowledge of his family tree back to Adam – as though that proves the claimant is not an animal. However, if the hypothetical Adam was human (H. sapiens), he (Adam) classifies as an animal.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

"I am NOT an animal"

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning that H. sapiens are classified as animals (alternatives being plant and virus). I do not recall ever hearing a Non-Theist object. 1) Is there something about religion that causes this?

You forgot rocks! Animal vegetable or mineral are the three basic choices. Virus', since they don't excrete or respire, are some kind of rudimentary molecular pro-life that hasn't made up it's mind yet what it wants to be when it grows up. But rocks are the other possible choice. And certainly an individual who exhibits all of the other traits associated with animal life and yet denies the obvious association, is also exhibiting a certain hard mineral like quality as well, at least in the old noggin. Another example of simple proto-life, perhaps?

[Zzyzx]

.
So far we have apparently established that the primary reason for humans to deny being animals is based upon writings by ancient religion promoters / writers who seem to be largely ignorant of biology and who had notions about humans being "created" as different from other animals (with perhaps a little ego or self-aggrandizement thrown in).

Those who wish to or need to think of themselves as special by virtue of religious beliefs are welcome to do so. However, those beliefs do not make something true -- particularly in the face of overwhelming biological information to the contrary.

This seems like another case in which some religionists place themselves in opposition to modern knowledge and science to defend ancient notions.

[Danmark]

.
"I am NOT an animal"

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning that H. sapiens are classified as animals (alternatives being plant and virus). I do not recall ever hearing a Non-Theist object. 1) Is there something about religion that causes this?

You see I am NOT an animal, never was and never in a billion years will I evolve to be one, my family tree all the way back to Adam don't have one ape in it.

2) Why be upset, indignant or in denial about a biological / taxonomic classification?

3) Since humans differ from other animals only in degree (some mental and physical characteristics), what is the objection to recognizing that they are animals?

4) Is anything other than religion (and possibly narcissism) involved?


In the quoted statement someone (whose theological position apparently defies description) claims knowledge of his family tree back to Adam – as though that proves the claimant is not an animal. However, if the hypothetical Adam was human (H. sapiens), he (Adam) classifies as an animal.

Ecclesiastes 3:18 "I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts."

Moderator Comment

Please do not respond with a single line, particularly a quote. Quoting Bible verses alone raise the assumption that the post violates the guidelines on preaching.
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[OnceConvinced]

"I am NOT an animal"

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning that H. sapiens are classified as animals (alternatives being plant and virus). I do not recall ever hearing a Non-Theist object. 1) Is there something about religion that causes this?

Even as a non-believer, I knew there was something different about humans. Yes, biologically we are similar to animals, especially other mammals of course. But what sets us apart? As Pink Floyd's "Keep Talking" song put it:

For millions of years mankind lived just like the animals
Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination
We learned to talk

Other animals have methods of communicating, but nothing compared to our speech and language. Maybe that's it? (besides the religious reasons of course)

As unlikely as it may seem, how can we be so sure that in many years from now other animals may not develop the ability to speak similarly?

The bible itself had a talking donkey and a talking snake in it!

[Hamsaka]

Our apparent differences from 'the rest of the animals' that set us above and apart from them do not automatically imply that man was made in God's image. Our differences, including complex verbal language and the neocortex, 'imagination', and so forth, are no basis for 'superiority' in any moral way, and provides no special dispensations except those we imagine ourselves to have.

We ARE different, just like snakes are different than earthworms, but the differences alone don't mean anything transcendent unless such a claim can be supported by evidence that SPECIFICALLY supports the transcendent.

Claims of transcendence or 'superiority' are made in the Genesis story. This is typical of most origin myths/stories. "Mankind" is often specially created by gods, or given 'special gifts' by the gods (to the dismay of other gods who don't want humans to have equal power to the gods).

[Bust Nak]

In Biblical “Classification humans is created separately from animals as image of God. It makes human different than animal.

Sure the Bible says humans are created in the image of God, but it does not say humans are not animals. Does image of God imply not animal?

[Box Whatbox]

I don’t see why person should accept modern biological classification, even if there are similarities in physical structure.

No absolute reason why anyone should accept it, except reason itself.
The biological sciences classify living organisms into five (or in US six) 'kingdoms', for technical convenience when communicating and working. Under this scheme, humans fit into the animal kingdom.
I would be interested to hear from anyone who can look at the definition of 'animal' in this system, and show why this definition is not true of h. sapiens.

[dianaiad]

.
"I am NOT an animal"

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning that H. sapiens are classified as animals (alternatives being plant and virus). I do not recall ever hearing a Non-Theist object. 1) Is there something about religion that causes this?

You see I am NOT an animal, never was and never in a billion years will I evolve to be one, my family tree all the way back to Adam don't have one ape in it.

2) Why be upset, indignant or in denial about a biological / taxonomic classification?

3) Since humans differ from other animals only in degree (some mental and physical characteristics), what is the objection to recognizing that they are animals?

4) Is anything other than religion (and possibly narcissism) involved?


In the quoted statement someone (whose theological position apparently defies description) claims knowledge of his family tree back to Adam – as though that proves the claimant is not an animal. However, if the hypothetical Adam was human (H. sapiens), he (Adam) classifies as an animal.

Ecclesiastes 3:18 "I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts."

Moderator Comment

Two things: first, One line comments that do not forward the conversation are discouraged. Please expand your thoughts. Second, posting scriptural references without comment may be seen as a form of 'preaching.' For "Christianity and Apologetics," the bible is not considered an authoritative source text; it's viability as such a text is one of the questions under discussion.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

.
"I am NOT an animal"

Many who do not appear to have much knowledge of biology seem indignant when learning that H. sapiens are classified as animals (alternatives being plant and virus). I do not recall ever hearing a Non-Theist object. 1) Is there something about religion that causes this?

You see I am NOT an animal, never was and never in a billion years will I evolve to be one, my family tree all the way back to Adam don't have one ape in it.

2) Why be upset, indignant or in denial about a biological / taxonomic classification?

3) Since humans differ from other animals only in degree (some mental and physical characteristics), what is the objection to recognizing that they are animals?

4) Is anything other than religion (and possibly narcissism) involved?


In the quoted statement someone (whose theological position apparently defies description) claims knowledge of his family tree back to Adam – as though that proves the claimant is not an animal. However, if the hypothetical Adam was human (H. sapiens), he (Adam) classifies as an animal.

Ecclesiastes 3:18 "I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts."

This is not a response to either moderation though I am surprised to see it was reported (twice even?).

For me, it was painfully obvious the reason this person quoted this specific verse. Had I posted it, I may also have felt no need to expand on it further.

It seems clear that further clarification is needed though. Hopefully I will get this correct on behalf of Beans.

We have a person that bases their beliefs off of the Bible. Due to these beliefs and the claims they make about being made in the image of a god and so on, this person takes issue the biologically descriptive term animal for humans.

Showing how this persons source itself claims that men are beasts is a powerful point, at least from my point of view. Will arian now argue that men are beasts, but not animals?

[higgy1911]

Seems to me the biggest distinction between humans and animals is the nearly limitless capacity for arrogance of the former .

Though I concede this is also present in the domestic cat. So even then we are not that different.