"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.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 29:

All very interesting. Would it be fair to say that you have provided further evidence that human emotions , feelings and perceptions are not reliable?

Ya can rely on gonna have 'em

We already know they are not, but it seems to me you are providing futher evidence by way of personal experience.

That's my conclusion. I don't wanna carry it too far, but yes, I think the data indicates that some "true believers" (no slur) may suffer bouts of emotively irrational thought. I gotta tell I suffer it from the other end of the spectrum, but there we go.

And that being so, that there is little credibilty or evidential value in personal claims of a God 'talking' to people?

If my voices are considered an apparition, and I readily admit they are (where there's nobody there when I hear 'em), well there we go.

I'm not trying to say the "voice of consciousness" we all have is the deal here. Surely we can all agree that's just a useful term. I refer specifically to instances where the perception is that of something or someone vocalizing, only they ain't there to do it. There's data indicating that such voices are "heard" in a very real sense, where brain activity can be seen to correspond to such events. In my case, I've never had such a real time scan performed, but I don't need one to convince me that my turning to look at the voice I just heard, and ain't nobody there, well how 'bout that.

I wanna be real clear though to say that in admitting my deal, I should have my comments considered within that scope as well as without it. I've suffered this condition my whole life, and if what I'm told's correct, I'll tote it with me to the grave. But boy won't that be a hoot, if I get buriated there, and the voices start coming up from it? Why, folks're apt to start thinking I'm the next coming of Jesus, just fixing to hop right on up and set to callin' a square dance, right there were good folks're trying to get them their final rest

[squint]

.
"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.

Christianity sez no different (caricatures of claims to the contrary notwithstanding):

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.

Ecclesiastes 3:19
For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

Sorry if somebody else already cited the above.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 30:

It's not that we are "smarter" than the other animals so much as that we are more creative.

You mean to tell me if you decided you had to dam you up a river, right then and there, you wouldn't waste time trying to find an axe, you'd just set to gnawing trees down?


Jethro sitting on the front step of the mansion whittling on some big pieces of pine:

Uncle Jed: Jethro, where'd you get them pine logs you's whittlin' at?
Jethro: I cut down one of Mrs. Drysdale's pine trees.
Uncle Jed: Boy! Shes gonna kill you!
Jethro: Nah, I gnawed on the stump so she'll think a beaver done it!

Y'all come back now, ya hear

[KenRU]

To me, this is a prime example of ignoring science, data and even the dictionary in favor of one's belief system.

The best Arian was able to reply (at least that I am aware of) when confronted with the dichotomy is with something along the lines of: definitions change and the dictionary is not reliable, all the while ignoring and discounting the genetic evidence.

-all the best

I think it is a different problem. I think it is the logical fallacy of equivocation, where two different meanings of the same word are being confused with each other. One is 'being an animal' on a moral/action base, and the other is 'being an animal' on a strictly biological basis. One is a metaphyiscal/philisophical construct, the other is a physical classification.

Perhaps, but Arian denies that he is an animal under any circumstances, and is drawing conclusions based upon this assertion. And once the multiple definitions are pointed out to him, he simply says the dictionary is wrong.

This does not seem like confusion to me. It seems much more in line with denial.

[arian]

To me, this is a prime example of ignoring science, data and even the dictionary in favor of one's belief system.

The best Arian was able to reply (at least that I am aware of) when confronted with the dichotomy is with something along the lines of: definitions change and the dictionary is not reliable, all the while ignoring and discounting the genetic evidence.

-all the best

I think it is a different problem. I think it is the logical fallacy of equivocation, where two different meanings of the same word are being confused with each other. One is 'being an animal' on a moral/action base, and the other is 'being an animal' on a strictly biological basis. One is a metaphyiscal/philisophical construct, the other is a physical classification.

Hello brother, too bad you won't see my response since you still have me on 'ignore', but you brought up a good point, and question? When does a human classify as an animal, and when does he not? Only religion could be so confusing, even when it comes to something as important as the self.

"I am" is not human/man/ the flesh part, nor made of dust. 'He is' genderless. 'I am' is a state of spirit/mind. Now when people (referring to non-animal humans, not the other half wit that doesn't know if he is an animal or a man; animal/man) start to deny 'themselves', or pretend to be something they're not (little children do this all the time; "ROOAARRR, I'm a lion daddy!" "U-U-A-A-E-E-A-A, .. now I am a monkey!") which should have been nipped before they turned 4, this could become a serious 'identity problem' when they grow into adulthood.

Really my friends, we got to get this 'identity-problem' fixed once and for all before we hit another Holocaust, .. a world wide one! Then it won't be just "religions gone Wild", but "animals gone Wild", .. and who will be there to stop it? Who, a man who thinks he is a brain, made of the dust as the animals?

Of course if someone believes he is the brain, that he is some physical part of himself, like the brain creating his self/mind, why they would tell each other: "You're such an ass!"? Because as I said, the brain is no more capable to reason than our Gluteus Maximus is. Or when they say; "You were thinking with your d__k", under this evolution terminology, that would actually make sense, and there is a solution for that: "If your ___k offends you, cut it off, it is better to enter, .. " well you know the rest. What this really means is that we should not fall into believing that this body, this flesh is who we are. We, us the mind within this body must take control, not jump on the first female we see because we are horny. I mean come on, it all makes sense, .. while if you believe the 'flesh' is all we are, then acting on instinct would be perfectly normal, but we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we?

Maybe that's why these female singers 'shake their booty so much', it's the Illuminate Ones plan to "bring the animal" out of humans, .. but I see it more like "turn them into animals", just like this purely 'brainwashing suggestive' song, Animals;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpgTC9MDx1o

[Zzyzx]

.

Maybe that's why these female singers 'shake their booty so much', it's the Illuminate Ones plan to "bring the animal" out of humans, .. but I see it more like "turn them into animals", just like this purely 'brainwashing suggestive' song, Animals

THAT'S IT -- You have identified the GREATEST threat to humanity -- women wiggling their rear.

How could that have escaped the attention of everyone else?

Wow. What a revelation.

[Bust Nak]

When does a human classify as an animal?

Always.

when does he not?

Never.

It's not confusing at all.

if you believe the 'flesh' is all we are, then acting on instinct would be perfectly normal, but we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we?

Why not? Are you suggesting that having conversation is against our instinct?

[Danmark]

When does a human classify as an animal?

Always.

when does he not?

Never.

It's not confusing at all.

if you believe the 'flesh' is all we are, then acting on instinct would be perfectly normal, but we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we?

Why not? Are you suggesting that having conversation is against our instinct?

Arian, this idea that the body ['the flesh'] is separate from our thoughts is old and demonstrably untrue. Take a perfectly health animal; remove its brain. Not only will it cease to have thoughts, the lower parts of its brain that send impulses to the heart and breathing apparatus will also stop.

If one supposes that a human has an immaterial soul, then removing it's brain should have no effect. We know that in both humans and in other animals, if we can disable the higher, thinking part of the brain while keeping its involuntary functions intact, by removing or otherwise disabling very specific parts of the brain, a physical body part.

One is at a great disadvantage if he obtains his knowledge of human anatomy and physiology from the Bible.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 5 by JoeyKnothead]

So do we give animals the same rights as man or remove the laws that bound one animal and not others? It seems kind of speciest currently.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 5 by JoeyKnothead]

So do we give animals the same rights as man or remove the laws that bound one animal and not others? It seems kind of speciest currently.

It is. We're all speciesists. Christians just feel that they need God's approval to be one.