"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.

[Blastcat]

Are these the same people (prophets, apostles, and the creators of laws) that we shouldn't trust entirely, because they have evil within them?

The Light shines the best in the direction of human internal darkness. It is only the dishonest who are led to dodge.

Perhaps you will now address my question?

Perhaps I did and it went without notice? Internal dishonesty keeps people from speaking honestly.

Then how do we know if your preachers and apostles, prophets and so on were not internally dishonest ? Do you have access to their internal honesty or lack thereof?

[Danmark]

[1]Religions don't claim to be science in the first place. Yes, many religions do make claims about the nature of the world that directly come into conflict with science, but the religious people who make these claims don't pretend to have derived this knowledge from experimentation in accordance with the scientific method.
....
[2]So, the idea that the body is separate from out thoughts is demonstrably untrue? Please read the article I linked, because your claim is clearly untrue. The research on this topic is not yet settled, meaning no one knows the true nature of consciousness and whether or not mental activity can exist without a physically functioning brain..

[1] That is the very point, religion is not science, yet whenever possible religionists try to use science to support their unscientific beliefs. The biggest offender is the YEC claimants along with all who deny evolutionary biology. Courts have ruled that creationists have just plain lied; are dishonest in their claims that creationism is science. So I stand by my claim that they simply make up their own rules.

[2] I'm not aware of the article you mention. Please cite the URL.
Again you are in error. Over and over it has been demonstrated that thought has a physical basis in the brain. In addition to the overwhelming scientific evidence of this fact, one can experiment directly, personally. Simply drink alcohol. Certain physical substances ingested have a direct effect on thoughts. That's why they are called "psychoactive." I have conducted this noble experiment many times and shall continue my research.

We know that trauma to specific areas of the brain, causes specific and predictable results in thought patterns; changes to the mind itself. We can actually see different areas of the brain light up depending on what someone is thinking. This is beyond reasonable dispute.

You are mistaking knowledge of the EXACT and detailed nature of consciousness with not having ANY idea about how the brain produces thought. This is the same faulty argument used claim evolution hasn't been proved. Creationists claim that since EVERY fossil of every species that has ever lived has not been found, evolution has not been proved. This kind of reasoning does not deserve the name 'reason.' It is absurd and demonstrates those who advocate such arguments do not understand science at all.

Certainly you can go out into the religious and superstitious realm of fantasy and ghosts and claim as you have, that despite the total and complete annihilation of the brain some kind of "spirit" remains; that one can 'think' without a brain; however, you have failed to so demonstrate.

Consciousness and thought are not necessarily the same since you can have one without the other. Meditation for instance involves emptying your mind of all thoughts. Some people are not even aware of all of their thoughts since thoughts can occur automatically/spontaneously/habitually, that is without conscious control or awareness. BUT they do have the ability to be aware of their thoughts if they knew how or wanted to try. So you have addresed thoughts but you have not addressed consciousness, per se.

You can get drunk, take or be given mind altering drugs, brain damage, etc but you are still aware. Sometimes you might even be aware that you are in a mind-altered state, like when you know youre hallucinating or dreaming, etc. Well for those who go beyond a point of brain damage that they cant communicate or theyre dead, its doesnt mean that they arent aware but rather they cant use their body to communicate. Take anesthesia awareness as an example where patients are conscious but unable to communicate. Now of couse we cant communicate after we die because we have no measurable way to do so, not necessarily because we ceased to exist.

Last, thoughts are not reducible to matter in every respect. If i have a mental image of a beatiful woman in my mind, what is her mass? What space does she occupy? If neither aoply and all matter has mass and occupies space, how could the woman be material?

http://www.beckinstitute.org/history-of-cbt/ (Dr. Aaron T. Beck, pioneer on CBT, view on automatic thoughts).

http://www.aana.com/forpatients/Pages/A ... Sheet.aspx. (Anesthesia awareness).

Interesting; however, this has little to do with my point, which is that there are no thoughts OR consciousness without the brain; i.e., physical tissue.

Did you want to address that point?

Obviously we can have a thought about something that either has or does not have mass. This has nothing to do with the idea that thoughts arise from physical [electro-chemical] processes that occur in a material organ [the brain].

[Danmark]

That is the very point, religion is not science, yet whenever possible religionists try to use science to support their unscientific beliefs. The biggest offender is the YEC claimants along with all who deny evolutionary biology. Courts have ruled that creationists have just plain lied; are dishonest in their claims that creationism is science. So I stand by my claim that they simply make up their own rules.

Right and as I said no one has ever claimed, at not I, that religion is science. Religion and science represent different domains of inquiry.

I'm not aware of the article you mention. Please cite the URL.

Really? I already linked it twice in my responses to you. When you edited my posts you chose to cut them out.

Again you are in error. Over and over it has been demonstrated that thought has a physical basis in the brain.

That wasn't your claim was it? You claim was that this idea that the body ['the flesh'] is separate from our thoughts is old and demonstrably untrue. You haven't tried to support this claim with any evidence other than your own personal opinions.

In addition to the overwhelming scientific evidence of this fact, one can experiment directly, personally. Simply drink alcohol. Certain physical substances ingested have a direct effect on thoughts. That's why they are called "psychoactive." I have conducted this noble experiment many times and shall continue my research.

lol alright, I'll take your word for it. Not sure what this has to do with your claim that the body is separate from our thoughts is demonstrably false. The fact that certain substances we ingest alter our thought processes has no bearing on the issue of whether our thoughts, our state of awareness and our mental activity can exist independently of a physically functioning brain.

We know that trauma to specific areas of the brain, causes specific and predictable results in thought patterns; changes to the mind itself. We can actually see different areas of the brain light up depending on what someone is thinking. This is beyond reasonable dispute.

Another non sequitor. You have asserted that without a functioning brain our thoughts cannot exist. Notice that when the brain is dying and is about to cease functioning, our thoughts and our sense of awareness is actually heightened. This contradicts your claim, and you ignored the article I linked explaining this.

You are mistaking knowledge of the EXACT and detailed nature of consciousness with not having ANY idea about how the brain produces thought.

Uh no, your claim was that this idea that the body ['the flesh'] is separate from our thoughts is old and demonstrably untrue. I pointed out that when it comes to this issue, no one knows yet because the research is still on going. No one knows if the body is separate from our thoughts and whether or not our thoughts and our state of awareness can exist if the brain dies. You have made a claim Danmark, please support it with something other than your opinions. If you have done your own research on this topic then please present it.

Why not simply post the URL to the article you claim rebuts my thesis that thoughts come from material; i.e, the brain? I'm certainly not going to go thru all your posts in all threads to try and find what you claim you sent.

You appear to be claiming that there is evidence that the 'soul' [thoughts, consciousness, personality, self awareness... ] exists without a brain. This is an ancient religious idea born of ignorance. You have exactly the same amount of evidence to support it as you have proof that Goblins exist and are the engines that make watches run.

However, we DO have overwhelming evidence that thoughts arise from the material brain and that drugs and trauma administered to the brain affect thought processes.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 99 by OpenYourEyes]

When you say 'what is her mass' do you mean "What mass would she have, were she real?" or "What mass does my brain's representation of her occupy?". The latter would require substantial development in computing and neuropsychology.

I am referring to your second question. So you are placing your bets on a materialistic explanation eventhough we already know that light is a factor in our ability to see images and no light souce exists in the brain, esp. to reflect any real image/object.

I'm unaware when I sleep; if I was brain dead, I'd be unaware of everything.

On average you are correct but in rare cases there are behaviors that can cross that line like 'sleep walking', 'lucid dreaming', etc. This should count towards what the mind and body can do even if it rarely happens. Either way you still experience while you sleep so you might also experience things after brain death.

Why compare sleep to death in this context? When we sleep our brain remains alive. "We MIGHT experience something after brain death?" If so, then the brain was not actually dead. Do you suppose we MIGHT experience things with no brain whatsoever? I suppose we MIGHT, but we could also suppose pigs fly out of my Aunt Fanny's garage.

BTW, I understand that many report they seldom dream. As I understand it, everyone dreams every night, but many do not recall most of their dreams. I may be odd man out, but for as long as I can remember I dream every night; however, if I get distracted upon waking the dream or dreams are almost impossible to recall.

Just as an experiment, you dreamless ones out there, or infrequent dreamers, make a conscious effort to remember your dream as you wake. I'd be interested in your reports.

Anyway, it seems the brain never stops. It is always working, always thinking, projecting images, inventing, creating ideas, telling stories. It never completely shuts off in a healthy normal subject. The fact we do not recall its activity is not evidence nothing was happening.

[Danmark]

I'd happily admit to having read almost nothing on the alleged resurrection. Yet I'd be delighted to engage in a head-to-head on it.

What if someone said:

I'd happily admit to having read almost nothing on evolution. Yet I'd be delighted to engage in a head-to-head on it.

or...

I'd happily admit to having read almost nothing on the big bang. Yet I'd be delighted to engage in a head-to-head on it.

?

Two problems here which make your questions non sequiturs.

1st, you appear to be equating a well known scientific theory which has an enormous body of evidence to support it, with a speculative religious fantasy that is supported by no reliable evidence.

2d, you are apparently dismissing the educational value of debate, which includes the preparation for the debate. For example, I know little about the history of South Africa, but I'd entertain the prospect of a debate featuring some aspect of its history because I know the process would force me to do some research.

In fact, for a warm up, just to get a little flavor of the subject, I think I'll start Michener's The Covenant. It's certainly been sitting on my bookshelf unread long enough.

[squint]

Are these the same people (prophets, apostles, and the creators of laws) that we shouldn't trust entirely, because they have evil within them?

The Light shines the best in the direction of human internal darkness. It is only the dishonest who are led to dodge.

Perhaps you will now address my question?

Perhaps I did and it went without notice? Internal dishonesty keeps people from speaking honestly.

Then how do we know if your preachers and apostles, prophets and so on were not internally dishonest ? Do you have access to their internal honesty or lack thereof?

Scripture presents that it's a "universal" condition of mankind. From there the interesting dissections begin.

[squint]

It's as if I'm saying "potato" and your saying "bowling shoes". Perhaps I am just not able to convey anything meaningful for you to understand. Either way, for me to continue to try to have a meaningful dialog with you would seem to be an effort in futility.

Many of you attempt to discuss scripture. Such discussions are all worthy of close examination of the basis of presentation upon which various sights are formed.

We tried the simplest approach possible, that "man" is internally good and evil and this information is internally empirically provable and available to anyone who examines their own conscience.

This makes scripture an internal matter.

All this hoo haa viewing from other directions are side bars, and largely irrelevant to what scripture has to say in Gods dealings with the evil quotients in the heart of the "man animal."

[Danmark]

It's as if I'm saying "potato" and your saying "bowling shoes". Perhaps I am just not able to convey anything meaningful for you to understand. Either way, for me to continue to try to have a meaningful dialog with you would seem to be an effort in futility.

Many of you attempt to discuss scripture. Such discussions are all worthy of close examination of the basis of presentation upon which various sights are formed.

We tried the simplest approach possible, that "man" is internally good and evil and this information is internally empirically provable and available to anyone who examines their own conscience.

This makes scripture an internal matter.

All this hoo haa viewing from other directions are side bars, and largely irrelevant to what scripture has to say in Gods dealings with the evil quotients in the heart of the "man animal."

Your central point fails Logic 101.
Your premise is that man is "internally good and evil" and that therefore "scripture is an "internal matter."

Tho' you are unclear on exactly what you mean by "internal," in any case it does not follow that because man judges himself "internally" that makes something outside himself "internal."

Scripture, like any other writing, exists externally, objectively regardless of how you decide to interpret it. You may read a passage and decide it means, for example, "bowling shoes," tho' everyone else thinks it means "potato."
Your internal evaluation is not valid or meaningful just because it is "internal."

In other words, your entire post offers ZERO help or guidance re: the interpretation of scripture.

[squint]

It's as if I'm saying "potato" and your saying "bowling shoes". Perhaps I am just not able to convey anything meaningful for you to understand. Either way, for me to continue to try to have a meaningful dialog with you would seem to be an effort in futility.

Many of you attempt to discuss scripture. Such discussions are all worthy of close examination of the basis of presentation upon which various sights are formed.

We tried the simplest approach possible, that "man" is internally good and evil and this information is internally empirically provable and available to anyone who examines their own conscience.

This makes scripture an internal matter.

All this hoo haa viewing from other directions are side bars, and largely irrelevant to what scripture has to say in Gods dealings with the evil quotients in the heart of the "man animal."

Your central point fails Logic 101.
Your premise is that man is "internally good and evil" and that therefore "scripture is an "internal matter."

A measure of approach to scripture is that it engages these "internal matters." And EXAMINES them.

Tho' you are unclear on exactly what you mean by "internal," in any case it does not follow that because man judges himself "internally" that makes something outside himself "internal."

I wasn't unclear whatsoever. Good and evil is a matter of mankinds internal conscience. As ambiguous as that may seem in your eyes.

Scripture, like any other writing, exists externally, objectively regardless of how you decide to interpret it.

So says you. But the instant we engage the matters we find out scriptures are matters of the "heart." And that makes it's intentions and directions "internal" in nature.

In other words, your entire post offers ZERO help or guidance re: the interpretation of scripture.

Perhaps not in the directions you propose, no. Your external sights are a nearly worthless approach to the subject matters of scripture. Scripture sees MANKIND INTERNALLY.

The 5 sense external realm takes a back seat.

Scriptures present that mankind is an internal wicked deceitful beast/animal. The most vile on the planet. And originates and sources this fact to be "internal" in nature, in the thought arena.

Gods Law invokes the resistance of the evil conscience, even EMPOWERS that resistance, and does so WITHOUT being seen.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 167 by Peds nurse]

The difficulty I'm having, Peds nurse, is that the scripture (according to squint) is telling us not to trust man, only trust god. And yet, we only know about god from scripture which comes from man. The very same creature the bible tells us is flawed and not to be trusted.

KenRU (aka:Keanu Reeves, Haha)!!!

I understand what you are saying, but I believe their is a misunderstanding. When the Bible tells us to not put our trust in man, but in God, what that translates to is faith. We are told to not to put our faith in man, but God. This means that when things get crazy in our lives, we don't ask of men, what we should be asking of God. "Should I divorce my wife? Is this the right spouse for me? I am so lonely that I want to give up on life. Should I try drugs? You get the point. We cannot only seek the advice of man, for God knows the plans he has for us, and sometimes who we ask, does not have our best interest in mind. And, when we do seek the advice of man, we run it by God first.

It would be silly for us to marry and never trust our spouse. However, we cannot put our spouse before God. We cannot expect our loved ones to fill the shoes of God...it sets everyone up for failure (from a Christian point of view).

Or is it, don't trust your fellow man, except it comes to Christianity? Then its ok?

We can trust our fellow man, if they are trustworthy...but we cannot trust them more than God (for believers).

And how do we know that the scripture/bible is accurate? Or, that our priests/pastors/reverends etc are speaking the truth regarding them?

According to squint, we should not be trusting our fellow man: from Post 109:
"Materialism, however intelligent, however "provable" will not over ride the reality of evil IN man, and as such MAN is not to be entirely trusted. "

We can only know the bible and scripture from man, yet, man should not be entirely trusted according to squint.

That is a contradiction, it seems.