"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.

[Zzyzx]

.

Have you demonstrated that your "delineations" are truthful and accurate – or are they just opinions, testimonials and unverifiable tales (ancient or modern)?

By who's measures? By who's dictates?

Readers – the hundreds to tens of thousands of views on individual threads represent people who decide for themselves the merits and credibility of what is presented.

Posters who make fanciful claims of knowledge and demonstrate inability to show that what they say is true and accurate (or who display inability to distinguish fact from fantasy) may think they convince others – as they perhaps do in church.

You want to be the Filter Imposer for all things legitimate?

Correction: There is no such position available on this Forum – unlike many church organizations. Otseng, site owner and administrator, has final say in what is allowed. Forum Rules and Guidelines are intended as announcement of policies and practices that apply.

Many seem to consider themselves exempt from Forum Rules and Guidelines (particularly those that preclude preaching and that require substantiation of claims). Such people often earn the title "Former Member" and/or "Banned."

We do not debate here "from a scriptural perspective" and "scripture" is not considered authoritative or proof of truth.

Most of you continually "claim" to know what scripture says.

Who, exactly is "most of you"?

Do you?

I claim ability to read standard written English text.

I do not claim to know the intent or exact meanings of writings by unidentifiable people thousands of years ago from very different cultures in different languages.

Do you make that claim?

There are sub-forums set aside for bible believers to talk among themselves, but in C&A debate does not assume that religious tales are true.

Then the claimants that scriptures are religious tales should refrain from pretending they know scripture or anything it presents.

"Claimants that scriptures are religious tales" are not allowed to post in select sub-forums. Those who consider such tales as authoritative are welcome to preach to one another their "interpretations" and argue about meanings.

[squint]

Readers – the hundreds to tens of thousands of views on individual threads represent people who decide for themselves the merits and credibility of what is presented.

I agree that faith or not or values/not in general are entirely the pursuits and directives of the individuals engaging same.

Posters who make fanciful claims of knowledge and demonstrate inability to show that what they say is true and accurate

It's pretty easy to foist various pitards of religious observations and claim that those are the presentations of the scriptures when they are simply byproducts, which in many 'anti' ways of proof of what scripture can do to people.

That doesn't mean those caricatures of christianity have any scriptural merit whatsoever. Christian sects in coalesced forms are byproducts.

(or who display inability to distinguish fact from fantasy) may think they convince others – as they perhaps do in church.

I enjoy critique of byproducts just as much as the next guy. I just engage it from the texts rather than thinking falsely that the byproduct is the presentation.

You want to be the Filter Imposer for all things legitimate?

Correction: There is no such position available on this Forum – unlike many church organizations. Otseng, site owner and administrator, has final say in what is allowed. Forum Rules and Guidelines are intended as announcement of policies and practices that apply.

You are allowed to say that your claims, "scripture" has no merit, but that speaks nothing to those who appreciate it's merits.

Many seem to consider themselves exempt from Forum Rules and Guidelines (particularly those that preclude preaching and that require substantiation of claims).

You are welcome to claim for example that love is a chemically induced state brought on by electrical stimulation of the brain, but no scientist can prove it so.

It's an unprovable claim masquerading as material empirical fact. To others it will be preposterous on the face of the claim.

Empiricism and hard evidence does not rule the whole world.

[KenRU]

Most of you continually "claim" to know what scripture says. Do you?

You say this as if you are completely unaware of the the scores and scores of various Christian denominations that rarely agree on anything. Christians can't even agree on the bible and its interpretations, hence the many versions out there.

For someone so learned in bible knowledge, how could differing opinions on the various messages within the bible be surprising to you?

Perhaps non-believers actually do know what they are talking about.

[squint]

Most of you continually "claim" to know what scripture says. Do you?

You say this as if you are completely unaware of the the scores and scores of various Christian denominations that rarely agree on anything. Christians can't even agree on the bible and its interpretations, hence the many versions out there.

Scripture in many ways examines our "internal beast" nature. It is unlikely that there is any reconnoitering past that fact or agreements to be located on that side of the ledgers. I prefer divided christianity because of the nature of those who engage.

For someone so learned in bible knowledge, how could differing opinions on the various messages within the bible be surprising to you?

It's not surprising whatsoever. There is no definition to be attached to the term "Eternal Mystery." Those who seek to pin that matter down are quite naturally bound to perpetual frustrations.

Perhaps non-believers actually do know what they are talking about.

I certainly don't buy a lot of byproducts of the realm. And yes, you or any other are right to reject such notions. That does not mean they are the direct sellers or that their produce is "honest" "reliable" or contains "integrity."

None of us will hear the pope or any member of their magisterium donning the presentations of Apostles personally. It just won't and can't happen. So, what am "I" to conclude from that other than there are a lot of spurrious religious posers in this world? Why would I believe any of them?

I will believe an honest man and test the merits of what he has to say.

[KenRU]

Perhaps non-believers actually do know what they are talking about.

I certainly don't buy a lot of byproducts of the realm. And yes, you or any other are right to reject such notions. That does not mean they are the direct sellers or that their produce is "honest" "reliable" or contains "integrity."

Nor does it mean that they are wrong. That was the point I was making.

None of us will hear the pope or any member of their magisterium donning the presentations of Apostles personally. It just won't and can't happen. So, what am "I" to conclude from that other than there are a lot of spurrious religious posers in this world? Why would I believe any of them?

Oh, I get it. Your interpretations are more likely to be right than the Catholics. Funny, I know a couple of Catholics who would say the same about your interpretations. So, I will put as much "faith" in their claim as I do yours. Well, no, actually, I give them a little bit more because I actually do know them.

I will believe an honest man and test the merits of what he has to say.

Seems like you have that backward, and it explains why you are so dismissive of things you do not agree with.

You're suppoesed to test what someone has to say BEFORE determining his/her honesty.

[squint]

Perhaps non-believers actually do know what they are talking about.

I certainly don't buy a lot of byproducts of the realm. And yes, you or any other are right to reject such notions. That does not mean they are the direct sellers or that their produce is "honest" "reliable" or contains "integrity."

Nor does it mean that they are wrong. That was the point I was making.

Meaning they (whoever they is) may be right? That would depend entirely on the dissections. I generally reject the "eternally punishing of some of humanity" God as a false notion and an imposition of a beastial mentality.

None of us will hear the pope or any member of their magisterium donning the presentations of Apostles personally. It just won't and can't happen. So, what am "I" to conclude from that other than there are a lot of spurrious religious posers in this world? Why would I believe any of them?

Oh, I get it. Your interpretations are more likely to be right than the Catholics.

I am not fond of claims of human infallibility, no. I find it personally laughable on the face of it.

Funny, I know a couple of Catholics who would say the same about your interpretations.

If they could prove they know same, maybe so. The last card I would ever think to play in the game of theology is "personal infallibility of a sinner or a group of sinners" as that automatically cancels all credibility "in my eyes."

They of course are welcome to engage their personal delusions.

So, I will put as much "faith" in their claim as I do yours. Well, no, actually, I give them a little bit more because I actually do know them.

You might have some points if you had a grasp of the matters to critique with, which is unlikely.

I will believe an honest man and test the merits of what he has to say.

Seems like you have that backward, and it explains why you are so dismissive of things you do not agree with.

I'll automatically dismiss any person who promotes God burning other people alive in fire for eternity just as readily as I would people killing Jews.

You're suppoesed to test what someone has to say BEFORE determining his/her honesty.

I dismiss a lot of things. So do you. "Personally" I think claims of human infallibility are entirely dishonest coming from any man or group, religious or not, and I equally won't be led by such dishonesty or buy such claims.

It's more of a wonder to me why anyone would engage to that.

[KenRU]

Perhaps non-believers actually do know what they are talking about.

I certainly don't buy a lot of byproducts of the realm. And yes, you or any other are right to reject such notions. That does not mean they are the direct sellers or that their produce is "honest" "reliable" or contains "integrity."

Nor does it mean that they are wrong. That was the point I was making.

Meaning they (whoever they is) may be right? That would depend entirely on the dissections. I generally reject the "eternally punishing of some of humanity" God as a false notion and an imposition of a beastial mentality.

None of us will hear the pope or any member of their magisterium donning the presentations of Apostles personally. It just won't and can't happen. So, what am "I" to conclude from that other than there are a lot of spurrious religious posers in this world? Why would I believe any of them?

Oh, I get it. Your interpretations are more likely to be right than the Catholics.

I am not fond of claims of human infallibility, no. I find it personally laughable on the face of it.

We agree.

Funny, I know a couple of Catholics who would say the same about your interpretations.

If they could prove they know same, maybe so.

Have you discussed such topics with one?

The last card I would ever think to play in the game of theology is "personal infallibility of a sinner or a group of sinners" as that automatically cancels all credibility "in my eyes."

The only Catholic (that I am aware of) who claims infallibility is the pope, and that is only when he speaks ex cathedra, so, if you are under the impression that all Catholics think this, then you are mistaken.

They of course are welcome to engage their personal delusions.

Its assertions like this thay make we want to remind you of the pot meeting the kettle.

So, I will put as much "faith" in their claim as I do yours. Well, no, actually, I give them a little bit more because I actually do know them.

You might have some points if you had a grasp of the matters to critique with, which is unlikely.

Unless you posses and are able to present knowledge that your theological position is correct, I'm fairly certain that reason, science and critical thinking are all one needs. Do you reason differently?

I will believe an honest man and test the merits of what he has to say.

Seems like you have that backward, and it explains why you are so dismissive of things you do not agree with.

I'll automatically dismiss any person who promotes God burning other people alive in fire for eternity just as readily as I would people killing Jews.

You can be as dismissive as you like, but that doesn't make your position correct. Not liking something has no bearing on its truth or not.

You're suppoesed to test what someone has to say BEFORE determining his/her honesty.

I dismiss a lot of things.

Without knowing its veracity? Not something to be proud of.

So do you.

I try not to dismiss things out of hand without good reason. Especially on important matters. Seems you are saying that if it contradicts my faith, it gets dismissed without a second thought.

"Personally" I think claims of human infallibility are entirely dishonest coming from any man or group, religious or not, and I equally won't be led by such dishonesty or buy such claims.

I agree as well. "Personally" I think if one is going to make claims of such magnitude (such as knowing which religion is the "right" one) they should be able to back it up. And if it comes down to a matter of "faith" only, then other religions deserve the same respect they would wish for there own (IE: not using words like delusions).

Seems only civil.

It's more of a wonder to me why anyone would engage to that.

Its a wonder to me why anyone would engage in religion at all. But I recognize that that is my opinion and that others may not agree.

[squint]

Perhaps non-believers actually do know what they are talking about.

I certainly don't buy a lot of byproducts of the realm. And yes, you or any other are right to reject such notions. That does not mean they are the direct sellers or that their produce is "honest" "reliable" or contains "integrity."

Nor does it mean that they are wrong. That was the point I was making.

Meaning they (whoever they is) may be right? That would depend entirely on the dissections. I generally reject the "eternally punishing of some of humanity" God as a false notion and an imposition of a beastial mentality.

None of us will hear the pope or any member of their magisterium donning the presentations of Apostles personally. It just won't and can't happen. So, what am "I" to conclude from that other than there are a lot of spurrious religious posers in this world? Why would I believe any of them?

Oh, I get it. Your interpretations are more likely to be right than the Catholics.

I am not fond of claims of human infallibility, no. I find it personally laughable on the face of it.

We agree.

Funny, I know a couple of Catholics who would say the same about your interpretations.

If they could prove they know same, maybe so.

Have you discussed such topics with one?

That's an interesting side topic. Technically members of the Roman catholic laity are not supposed to engage in theological debate with heretics, heretic by their definition meaning anyone who knowingly openly disagrees with ANY of their body of works.

Have I engaged legitimate representatives of the clergy class? Yes. Supposedly anyway. Fortunately burning at the stake or civil authority torture engaged as a finding of their sect for heresy is no longer in their hands.

The last card I would ever think to play in the game of theology is "personal infallibility of a sinner or a group of sinners" as that automatically cancels all credibility "in my eyes."

The only Catholic (that I am aware of) who claims infallibility is the pope,

Again, that really isn't their claim. Their claim (generally speaking) is infallibility of the findings of their collective, and epitomized and held by their head. Not as to his admitted personal imperfections. It kind of double deals the subject matter to a certain extent.

and that is only when he speaks ex cathedra, so, if you are under the impression that all Catholics think this, then you are mistaken.

Their reality is that "whatever" they hold only "they" are capable of saying and determining what it actually is. Our views in their eyes are entirely irrelevant in any case of dissections. They, in their eyes, "own all" the scriptures and all rights to authoritative findings according to their internally held systems.

They of course are welcome to engage their personal delusions.

Its assertions like this thay make we want to remind you of the pot meeting the kettle.

Unlikely you'll find many similarities.

As noted prior. Any group such as THEY who openly and still promote that heretics are worthy of death in my eyes discounts their sights entirely. They still remain seeking control of "the other sword" which is directive to civil authorities.

So, I will put as much "faith" in their claim as I do yours. Well, no, actually, I give them a little bit more because I actually do know them.

Unlikely there is much if any similarity. You are welcome to listen to killing promotions, if you please.

You might have some points if you had a grasp of the matters to critique with, which is unlikely.

Unless you posses and are able to present knowledge that your theological position is correct, I'm fairly certain that reason, science and critical thinking are all one needs. Do you reason differently?

What theological positions are you referring to? Have we had any relevant exchanges to this point of any value? Do I listen to killers? Uh, no. I could care less what they have to say.

If I believe God loves and saves all people is that some kind of personal offense to you?

Do you take personal offense at Buddhists?

Do you perceive some kind of threat in such sights?

[KenRU]

If they could prove they know same, maybe so.

Have you discussed such topics with one?

That's an interesting side topic. Technically members of the Roman catholic laity are not supposed to engage in theological debate with heretics, heretic by their definition meaning anyone who knowingly openly disagrees with ANY of their body of works.

Perhaps that’s the way it was, but I can tell you in practice that is not the case now. As for whether what you say is Catholic Doctrine, I do not know.

Have I engaged legitimate representatives of the clergy class? Yes. Supposedly anyway. Fortunately burning at the stake or civil authority torture engaged as a finding of their sect for heresy is no longer in their hands.

Fortunately, for many of us, we do not live in a theocratic society.

The last card I would ever think to play in the game of theology is "personal infallibility of a sinner or a group of sinners" as that automatically cancels all credibility "in my eyes."

The only Catholic (that I am aware of) who claims infallibility is the pope,

Again, that really isn't their claim. Their claim (generally speaking) is infallibility of the findings of their collective, and epitomized and held by their head. Not as to his admitted personal imperfections. It kind of double deals the subject matter to a certain extent.

The only Catholic who can speak with infallibility is the pope. The bishops’ words can be made “infallible� only by decree (or ordained) via the pope. At least as I (an ex-Catholic) understands it.

and that is only when he speaks ex cathedra, so, if you are under the impression that all Catholics think this, then you are mistaken.

Their reality is that "whatever" they hold only "they" are capable of saying and determining what it actually is. Our views in their eyes are entirely irrelevant in any case of dissections. They, in their eyes, "own all" the scriptures and all rights to authoritative findings according to their internally held systems.

It is relevant to this conversation if you think that all Catholics believe they are infallible. They do not.

They of course are welcome to engage their personal delusions.

Its assertions like this thay make we want to remind you of the pot meeting the kettle.

Unlikely you'll find many similarities.

Other than you both believe each other to be wrong? Other than your belief in Christ as the son of god? Other than your faith in Jesus’s message? Other than the holiness of the bible? Other than your belief in salvation? Need I go on?

They do believe in evolution (albeit a god-guided one), do you? Is that a difference or another similarity?

As noted prior. Any group such as THEY who openly and still promote that heretics are worthy of death in my eyes discounts their sights entirely.

I am unaware of this assertion. Please enlighten me as where Catholics still assert this?

I’m genuinely curious. Haven’t been to church in a while, lol.

They still remain seeking control of "the other sword" which is directive to civil authorities.

This is going to need further explanation. You’ve lost me.

So, I will put as much "faith" in their claim as I do yours. Well, no, actually, I give them a little bit more because I actually do know them.

Unlikely there is much if any similarity. You are welcome to listen to killing promotions, if you please.

I’ve been to church countless times. Rec’d 3 sacraments, gone to confessionals, rec’d Holy Communion and spent countless more days in CCD. Don’t recall getting any mandates to kill anyone. Please explain what you mean.

You might have some points if you had a grasp of the matters to critique with, which is unlikely.

Unless you posses and are able to present knowledge that your theological position is correct, I'm fairly certain that reason, science and critical thinking are all one needs. Do you reason differently?

What theological positions are you referring to?

I wasn’t. You were. What “matters� do you think I can’t grasp?

Have we had any relevant exchanges to this point of any value?

I always find it valuable to learn what other people believe and why they believe it.

Why do you believe that I don’t have a “grasp� of certain matters? Which ones would you care to discuss? Were you just guessing or was it perhaps a mistake to accuse me of this?

Do I listen to killers?

I should hope not.

Uh, no. I could care less what they have to say.

Good for you. Not seeing the relevance though.

If I believe God loves and saves all people is that some kind of personal offense to you?

Not at all. Why would you think so?

Do you take personal offense at Buddhists?

No. Why should I?

Do you perceive some kind of threat in such sights?

Not at all. I only see threats when religious folk try to weasel their faith into law, or when they wish exceptions from laws in a secular (multi-faith) society.

Not sure what this has to do with me having a “grasp of the matters to critique with�.

Perhaps you can explain more fully what you meant then.

[Danmark]

What theological positions are you referring to? Have we had any relevant exchanges to this point of any value? Do I listen to killers? Uh, no. I could care less what they have to say.

If I believe God loves and saves all people is that some kind of personal offense to you?

Do you take personal offense at Buddhists?

Do you perceive some kind of threat in such sights?

Buddhists don't go around proclaiming they are the only ones who know God, or claiming people hate God, or have scriptures like the one in my signature: