jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (328 posts)

The Anthropomorphic Conundrum

  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago

    Most zoologists and animal behaviourists have long contended that our tendency to  apply  human interpretation/invocation  to  the behaviour of  various animal specie (be they domestic or wild) should be done with great caution, lest we fall into the trap of  procedurally elevating them to the level of human predisposition.

    Nowhere is this tendency to "humanize" animal behaviour  more obvert than in the  observation that various animal specie, from  cats and dogs, to crows, elephants, and whales  goes through what appears to be ritualized activities, when dealing with the death of a kin. Ritualized activities that seem to support the idea that humans are not the only sentient specie that mourn the death of a loved one or a kindred.

    Could we go further and say that  this ability to mourn, not only signal sentience, and cognition, but volition and creation as well?  These four characteristic are typically what defines humans, soulful or otherwise.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Many many people love their pets, and yes pets have the ability to feel some sort of affection and attachment to humans, even specific humans sometimes.

      But...if you're trying to close the soul/spirit gap or even the natural gap between humans and animals,  it can't be done.    There will always be a huge difference between the two species.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Brenda:

        Humans and all the other sentient entities are  members in good standing of what we call the animal kingdom. Some would caution however, that humans, having reached its current niche in the natural world, should never be hubristic enough to conclude that they are the undisputed ruler of that kingdom. Our dominance over the earth is not an acceptable formulation to some folks i.e. the objectiviists/reductionists/nihilists amongst us. To these folks, the fact  that we share  the most basic of genetic codes with other animal specie, is an indication that humans are  not any more  special,  important, purposeful, meaningful, than the others.... the unassailable existence of the human soul, notwithstanding.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, I'm pretty sure that connection was made by some person (perhaps a "scientist") who chose to make that connection and it picked up speed and kept rolling.   I personally don't have to agree with whatever definition of "animal" or "species" or "humanity" some other person came up with!   I have as much common sense as any scientist,  and I maintain that humans and animals are two separate species.   I am not a part of the "animal kingdom" and animals are not a part of humanity.
          Not just the Bible, but common knowledge tells us that there's a huge difference between humans and animals.   Of course we're more special!

          1. JMcFarland profile image93
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            and more arrogant, too!

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Indeed.
              I'll take that as a compliment.
              As anyone should.  smile

              1. 61
                picnic2013posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sure about that Brenda?

                "The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate." (Proverbs 8:13)

          2. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            For some, the topic of evolution is indeed common knowledge, while it completely escapes the grasp of others, for various reasons.

            For example, although humans are indeed classified as a species, animals are not.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              @ATM:

              Huh?... what did you just say?

          3. 61
            picnic2013posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @Brenda Durham~ Thankfully scientists need more than "common sense", as you put it, to be qualified...

      2. jenb0128 profile image94
        jenb0128posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Somebody really didn't pay attention in biology class.



        TWO species? Two? Try millions. All animals are not part of the same species. And yes, there are differences between Homo sapiens and other species, just like there's a big difference between a dog and a cat, or a robin and a chicken.



        Well then, there are six biological kingdoms - Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, and Bacteria. If you aren't part of the animal kingdom, then you're a plant, a fungus, or some type of microorganism such as a bacterium.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image79
          A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          @jen:
          Thanks for reminding folks that  Homo Sapiens  is  not the only animal specie on earth. I stil remember my old Biology/Zoology professor, Dr. Pozon,  with respect and admiration for his love of the natural world.

          1. jenb0128 profile image94
            jenb0128posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I had a great biology professor as well. You gotta love how those lessons taught by great teachers stick with you!

        2. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Again, no I'm not part of the animal species.
          Just because someone else chooses to classify humans as animals doesn't make it so!

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @Brenda:
            Biologically/zoologically speaking  Homo Sapiens is,  for classification and comparison purposes, an animal specie. Now philosophically speaking, you have a point in saying that humans may classify themselves apart and or distinct from the other sentient entities.

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Right.
              I think I persist in making my point because society seems to avoid differentiating between the two.   I mean, seriously, even around these forums, some atheists and evolutionists have taken to declaring that they (and I, in order to mock me) are "Great Apes" and such.    I think they think if they say it enough,  people will start to believe it.   Heck, they already have! lol.   It's a common misconception that humans are "animals" both biologically and philosophically!    And that idea has come from the erroneous classification by some "scientist" or whoever created that label.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No, it's a verified fact beyond any shadow of a doubt that humans are animals, every scientist on the planet knows that. Children know and understand that. Denying these clear and simple to understand facts is well beyond any reasonable or rational grasp of reality, not even tenuous at best.

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Wait a minute.
                  Exactly why were humans labeled as animals?
                  Think about it before you answer.
                  Why should we believe whichever "scientist" or "scientists" labeled us as animals, when in FACT we can look around us and see reality, see the difference between us and animals?

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Thinking about it is something we are asking you to do.



                    Reality is crystal clear in regards to the similarities and differences between humans and other animals, that is the point entirely.

                2. getitrite profile image81
                  getitriteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And it is also a fact that humans are Great Apes:

                  Great apes are members of the family Hominidae, which includes humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans.

                  But of course:

                  http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb8/husky2x/lalalala.gif

                  1. 0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Again, 
                    WHO made up that definition?
                    And why do we have to go by that?
                    The answer is we do not.

                    As I said before, we can see reality.  We can literally see the difference between humans and animals.
                    The scientific group or person/s who started the rumor about humans being animals were in great error, and their error has perpetuated the idea that biological evolution is valid.

                    Even the Bible confirms the difference, tells us that the two "species" are indeed separate.

                    Genesis gives the story of creation, which lays out the facts.
                    And here's another verse that tells-----

                    1Corinthians 15: 39:

                    "All flesh is not the same flesh:  but there is one kind of flesh of men,  another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."

            2. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Exactly. It is relevant only to philosophical muse.

          2. jenb0128 profile image94
            jenb0128posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Again, there is no ONE animal species. There are millions, and Homo sapiens is one of those species. You could say that humans are the most advanced members of the animal kingdom, and you won't get any argument. However, to say that we aren't part of the animal kingdom is flat out false, no matter how much you believe it. There is no separate biological taxonomic kingdom for humans, period.

    2. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Why would zoologists even give that any thought whatsoever? Why would anyone care?

      1. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @ATM:
        Your post is an excellent example on how nihilism could and would totally eradicate any semblance of empathy to human predisposition. Empathy evokes our natural/emotional/intellectual connectedness to  each other and to all the other sentient beings that we share the earth with. Empathy in some ways evokes our spiritual connectedness as well.

        Oh but I forgot...you do not believe in the soul and or anything related to the spiritual. A soul-less human. What a pity.

      2. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Because humans are curious and whether you believe in Creation or evolution, the fact is that there is something, somewhere, that a human or a group of humans will feel passionate about.

        But moreover,  people care about this because we wonder what it is that sets us apart from the animals. And  one way  to try to figure that out is to study animal behaviors.

        I've always found it interesting that, according to what I've heard, we humans are the only  species that work together as a group, i.e. someone sets a goal and then the group works toward  that goal. For instance, building a hospital, or making a car. Someone sets the goal, a group of humans come together, some may be specialized or not, and then work together to create from the vision. Other groups of animals will work together for defense of the herd, but not in the purposeful, sophisticated ways that humans do.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wolves and lions hunt in packs and as a team. Ants and bees certainly work together for a common goal. That's just off the top of my head.

          1. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            There are numerous example of animal joint activities including impressive hives and communal nests.

            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Which is attributable (sp?) to instinct. The Taj Mahal  was not a product of instinct. Nor was Wal-Mart, although there the argument might be more persuasive.

          2. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes. And not one of those things involves someone with a vision organizing a group to work together. So far,  humans are still the only ones.

            1. 0
              Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              How can you be so sure? You are looking at things from a human perspective. You cannot know for sure how any of the other living things operate.. unless you are saying you speak and understand the language of all the animals as well as know exactly the specifics of how they think

              1. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Because I listen to and read what scientists say.

                Yeah, in an absolute sense, unless you're really like Dr. Doolittle and Dr. Who combined you can't really know, I suppose, but based on what we do know, which is quite extensive, humans are the only species that do that.

                That doesn't mean that animals don't do some fantastic things. But careful observation by people far more patient than I am has not yielded the insight that there are any lemur colonies out there building high-rises with a/c and central plumbing.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And, then deny the facts and evidence in favor of ancient myths and superstitions.

                  1. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Again, that's a rebuttal?

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Wrong. Lions hunt in coordinated groups and stalk their chosen prey.  Each lioness has a favored position in the group, either stalking prey on the "wing" then attacking, or moving a smaller distance in the centre of the group and capturing prey in flight from other lionesses. They work together under the lead alfa female.

              Army ants in Brazil bild a nest out of live ants.

              Bees comunicate to other bees where to find pollen.

              Wolves hunt in coordinated packs with a common goal.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I think you've missed Chris's point. You've brought up things that help survival.  He mentioned projects such as the Taj Mahal and a Wal Mart. How are the two similar?

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well because humans don't do much for free. All of the construction workers and engineers get paid. They get paid to put food on the table. I do work for free from time to time, but I don't expect that favour to go unnoticed. It's all about survival.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I guess that is true, in some instances. I had a party once and we built a deck during it. No one got paid.  What about a barn raising? Or, when kids get together to build a treehouse?

                    Are those the same as lions hunting?

                  2. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That's true (of MODERN men) but that simply serves to reinforce my point.

                    Or, let me respond by asking you this, if you we were somehow able to introduce the idea of monetary compensation with which these animals could purchase not only necessities but also "creature comforts" (as they used to be called,) are you asserting that we would, eventually if not immediately, see prides of lions start building lion cities? And herds of zebras building zebra hospitals?

              2. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                And still none of those things involve someone drawing up a plan and organizing a group. Especially the bees and ants.

                Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that wonderful things don't happen in the animal world. I concede nothing when I say that nature is fascinating and I love to watch programs that point out and talk about all these things. I think that most animals are smarter  than people give them credit for. I'm not just being some crank who asserts that humans are the, ah, "bee's knees" (sorry, couldn't resist) and animals are really just dumb brutes.

                What I am saying is that no animal ever built a city or a hospital. Yeah, the living hive is a magnificent thing, but it's not the same. Ants aren't capable of that level of thinking. And when I first heard that a bee's pollen dance resembles certain figures from higher trig, that totally blew me away! I really thought that God has designed some wonderous things in His creation. But it doesn't change my point.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You've changed your point so it does change your point. Your original point was that no other animal works together to obtain the results of a goal. When I show you they do you claim your point was no other animals draw up a plan to build a hospital.

                  1. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Noooooo,

                    My original point was that no other creature has ever built a city or a hospital. What people have used to "disprove" my point has not done so. I might have made it a little clearer that I am aware that animals work in groups (I did say something about protecting the herd) but I never, ever said that animals don't work in groups while humans do. What I have always maintained is that animals don't work in groups to build sophisticated edifices with intricate details according to a plan envisioned by someone.

                2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  lol Side split-tingly hilarious. Believers come up with the most childish and silliest excuses.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    @ATM:

                    It has nothing to do with faith or believing in a deity....the absolute fact is humans have the brain capacity that none of the other sentient beings on earth could match.

                    Now if  you and RadMan and the rest of your ilks out there wants to elevate the cerebral perspicacity and temerity of these other sentient entities to  the level of your  own cerebral capacity,  or to degrade your own cerebral functioning to the level of  non-human members of  the animal kingdom...then be my guest.  Your statement "Believers come up with the most childish and sillliest excuses" is totally missing the point of what Chris Neal is saying.

                  2. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That's a rebuttal?

    3. kess profile image60
      kessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A man  who understands himself as a man,
      Will be able to identify as and amongst the animals...
      And yet still as  beyond or higher than them.

      Otherwise he who does not understand such things, it is inevitable then,
      that his entire Life will be lived merely as an animal...

      ...Meaning the totality of his life amounts to his own death.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image59
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Not only is that silly, it is entirely false. The fact that we are animals has nothing to do with how we decide to live our lives and what value it has.

        1. kess profile image60
          kessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes...
          it is silly to your understanding...
          So you are as you think....

          ...As an animal who cannot see beyond his own death
          nothing more.

          No need to argue

          1. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Anyone who claims they can see beyond their own deaths is lying.



            No need to lie.

            1. kess profile image60
              kessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Anyone who cant see beyond their own death, will deny any such claims....

              So you speak the truth....
              ....according to the dead.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @Kess:
                Your post as riddles are so totally perplexing especially to folks whose conception of reality does not involve anything but the physical and material. Thus ATM is flumoxomed by it all.

                1. kess profile image60
                  kessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The ultimate paradox is that the blind man accepts that he is blind indeed...

                  ....then he begins to see..

                  Many accepts they are blind but only to prove their sight...thus they remain blind.

  2. 0
    Rad Manposted 3 years ago

    Wow, I thought I had read everything when someone on another forum explained the variety of skin colour by saying that is you go to California you'll get a tan, but this forum takes the entire cake.

    If we are not animals, what are we? We eat, sleep, pee and poop and sometimes we are eaten just like every other animal. Our genetic code is almost identical to the chimps so much so that it takes an expert to tell them apart.

    If we are not animals what the heck are we?

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      We are humans.
      Uniquely human.
      So Loved by God that He sent Jesus to die for our sins.
      That's what we are.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        But isn't an elephant uniquely an elephant, but still an animal? Are humans not subject to all the things other animals are subject to. We are born, we eat, we poo, we pee, we die.

        1. getitrite profile image81
          getitriteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          However, you forgot that God didn't murder his son for these other animals.  Just for us.  smile  That's the difference.

          1. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That idea is from a book written by a man, not one written by an elephant.  Maybe the animals didn;t need a messiah because they never sinned.

            1. getitrite profile image81
              getitriteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Agreed. The disturbing part is that someone would still follow the primitive mindset and customs of ancient ignorant barbaric peoples who believed that Gods required sacrifices, then come into a forum of postmodern free thinkers, and spout such absurdities...then expect to have a real debate.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @getitrite:
                So sorry Getitrite, but I must tell you....you are giving yourself way too much credit for being a  member of that  'elite'  group of what you term  as "postmodern free thinkers". You and RadMan and ATM are "postmodern freethinkers?". Now that is a stretch.

                If you must know, I'd rather be in the company of  "ancient ignorant barbaric peoples" who follow  "primitive mindset and customs". Much simpler to acquiesce one's existence to a Deity, than to the  non-utility and futility of that existence.

                1. getitrite profile image81
                  getitriteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Good thing is that your obviously biased and ad honinem opinion doesn't count.



                  Yep.  If you were in that era, you would fit right in.  Then you, and those primitives, could start a big fire, and throw people like ATM, Rad Man, JM, and Getitrite onto it. lol   What an enlightening weltanchauung you have.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    @Getitrite:
                    And your opinion count?  Really?
                    Those primitives?  Weltanchaung?
                    Oh wait.. you must be an ardent disciple of who else ... Mark Knowles.

      2. 61
        picnic2013posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @ Brenda Durham~ How do you explain these:

        “For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity.” (Ecclesiastes 3:19)

        "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you-the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you-every living creature on earth." (Genesis 9:9-10)

        “God created all the animals.” (Psalm 104)

        “God cares for the animals.” (1 John 4:16)

        Of course Brenda will have some spin on all this too, let's wait and see how she'll manipulate scripture to fit her beliefs...

        1. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe this scripture isn't her Bible



          These scriptures were only talking about animals, Man wasn't included in these or it would have read MAN and animals.





          I took care of it for her..

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well stated. It's a silly argument, indeed, to insist that the Bible doesn't show man as a completely separate species; above and beyond (with dominion over) the animals. And judged by a completely different standard.

            1. 0
              Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The bible does state that man is given dominion. But still no different. Then again it was written by man

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I don't know. I'm no where near a Bible at the moment; but I believe the New Testament has passages that make it clear humanity is not on the same spiritual footing as other animals. Not something I believe, but I don't suppose my beliefs determine what the Bible says.

              2. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Bu that's a circular argument. How do you know for sure that just because men put down the words in the Bible, that is the only reason men are elevated above the animals in the Bible?

        2. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          But He still did not create animals in His image, only humans. And Jesus did not come to die for the sins of animals, only humans.

          1. JMcFarland profile image93
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Chris, please tell me that you accept at the very least that homo sapiens are, in fact, a part of the animal kingdom.

            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What happens if I don't?

              1. JMcFarland profile image93
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'll lose a little of the respect I have for you.  humatn beings are a species, but we're still mammals.  we aren't our own classification.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank goodness. I was afraid my head would explode!

                  Seriously, yeah humans are mammals but I've found the danger in saying that we're animals is that people here it as saying "See, he agrees that humans are just another animal." We're not. We were created in God's image, no matter who we are or what we look like. Apes were not, cats were not and whales were not, although they are also all mammals.

                  I'm not sure how you're going to "hear" this, but in that respect humans are not animals.

                  So, my answer is a bit more complicated than a simple "yes" or "no."

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Mammals are animals.
                    Humans are mammals.
                    Therefore humans are animals.

                    It really is just a yes or no question.

        3. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ecclesiastes was authored by a very experienced, very wise man.  Most scholars think it's Solomon himself.

          In that first verse you mentioned, he is simply telling how life is from a natural view.  A human view.  He was, after all, human like we are human,  and subject to considering things from a human view at times, whether in himself or in sympathy for others, and dismissing a spiritual view.   And when we do that,  it would seem like we've got no more of a future than animals do;  we live and die and get buried (returning to the dust) just like the animals do;  and it's impossible to literally see what happens to our spirits after someone is dead.   The dead cannot tell us, and we cannot tell where their spirits are after they're dead! 
          If you'd read the previous chapters,  you'd see that the author is in a very serious thoughtful mood, and sees no lasting pleasure in earthly life, sees the facts of life for what they are,  seemingly finding no purpose in this life.   He sees mankind's fate as universally useless when only the natural is thought of;  it seems to be just like the fate of animals.    I think all Christians probably go through that frame of mind sometimes.   But we always return to our spiritual knowledge.   And there are many passages in Ecclesiastes which illustrate that.

          I wonder why you didn't quote Ch. 3 verse18!?    OH MY!   That one actually insinuates that men ARE beasts!!  LOLOL.     I think you must've just googled a verse to try to denounce my view, and verse 19 was the one that popped up!  ha.
          FYI, verse 18 is just a complaint that, again, we often act like beasts and our fate seems to be no different than that of beasts.

          I've no problem with any of those verses.   Read the rest of Ecclesiastes!   Solomon (or whoever the King and "preacher" was),  is very Spiritual!    He knows the natural life, the natural man that he is,  and he knows God and knows the spiritual "man" that he himself is.

          And I've never said that God doesn't love animals!    I love animals too!   I have pets, and I would never be intentionally cruel to any animal unless there was a good reason.   But the Bible says we are to have dominion over animals;  and to use them for food, work, etc.    I'm pretty sure the Lord wouldn't have allowed us to slay, cook, and eat animals if WE were animals!  LOL.

          The verses in Genesis show that God promised to not destroy the earth with a flood again.  Many people and many animals died in the flood!   And God promised to not do that again,  not to mankind and not to the animals.  It doesn't give Him pleasure to see anyone or any thing suffer.

          All I've been saying on this thread is that mankind are not animals.   Simple fact.    Why you'd have a problem with that is strange to me, but whatever!   Maybe you and some others like to think of yourselves as animals, but that's a rather head-in-sand way to think of it for sure!    A way to avoid responsibility too.

          1. 61
            picnic2013posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Do you believe that we are mammals?
            Here's the definition by Merriam-Webster:
            Definition of MAMMAL
            : any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (as placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less covered with hair.

            Please explain what you mean when you say:
            "Maybe you and some others like to think of yourselves as animals, but that's a rather head-in-sand way to think of it for sure! A way to avoid responsibility too."

            Responsibility for what exactly?

            1. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Responsibility for our actions, thoughts, etc.   Sin.   Morals.  Right versus wrong. 
              Animals live by basic instinct.
              Humans have consciences that persuade us to,  if not choose to act right, at least think about whether something is right or wrong.

              As far as whether I believe we're mammals or not..........I elaborated on that earlier;   humans should've never been classified in the same species as animals from the get-go;  ergo, "mammals" is an erroneous label anyway.

              1. JMcFarland profile image93
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                do they?  Then how do you account for sociopaths or psychopaths that cannot distinguish between right and wrong at all?  They feel no empathy or compassion for fellow humans.  they do what they want to do.  If the bible is true and the law of god is written on the hearts of man, the existence of one of these people negates it and makes it invalid.

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  There's disease of mind and body in the human species.   What's hard to understand about that?

                  And the Lord said He WILL write His laws on our hearts.   I think that refers to His people, Christians.  If we Love Him, we will read and pray and study His word so that they ARE written on our hearts.
                  Aside, of course, from the human conscience that all of us have (perhaps with the few exceptions we mentioned of people who are mentally ill.   ..........and then.....there are the ones who've deliberately seared their consciences so badly that they seem to not have one at all).

              2. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Humans live by instinct too. We have our own motivations and survival instinct. To assume that humans are special because we know right from wrong is too simplistic.

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Humans have the capacity for Spiritual sense too.   We don't just survive on instinct.   We have access to knowledge about Life after this earthly life.

                  1. JMcFarland profile image93
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    do you claim to speak all of the animal's language to know what it is that they think about and what they are or are not aware of?

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Nonsense, no such thing has ever been shown to exist as a sense or anything else.

                  3. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
                    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    All we know for sure is that someone wrote a book....

  3. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    We are also animals.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Said who, through what authority?

      1. JMcFarland profile image93
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this
        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Not good enough.

          1. JMcFarland profile image93
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The page included links for further reading.

      2. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Brenda:
        I understand fully where you are coming from... and I empathize with the philosophic/ spiritual  underpinning of what you are saying in your posts.

        Therein lies the conundrum.

        On the one hand, the HUMANISTS among us are easily predisposed  to assign human emotions/conclusions  to the behaviour of  other sentient beings. On the other end of the spectrum, the NIHILISTS among us are utterly willing to reduce(reductionists) humans to mere physical objects( objectivists) whose realities  are neither different nor separate from those of the other sentient beings, and therefore, following the linear progression of those belief systems, human existence could  and should be inferred soley from what their 5 physical senses input into their brains and the meaning of that existence  neither filled with purpose nor  assignated with utility.

  4. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    And behaviourists realize that a lot of the qualities we consider "human" are actually equally present in many different species.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Understanding what the pointed finger means is not only not unique to humans, but has been breed into the dog and understood by the chimp our closest relative.

  5. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I am not sure how it is purely an issue of the Bible.  IMHO people are very impressive animals with complicated beliefs. Animal is a word and it means what people living now mean when they say it.

    1. 0
      Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It isn't purely a biblical issue

  6. getitrite profile image81
    getitriteposted 3 years ago

    Chimpanzees and humans differ by just over one percent of DNA. In fact biologically, chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas. Some have proposed including chimpanzees (genus Pan) in the same genus as human beings (genus Homo) to recognise these similarities, calling them Homo troglodytes. Though this is controversial, it emphasizes how similar we really are.

  7. jenb0128 profile image94
    jenb0128posted 3 years ago

    One of my cats is sitting on me right now, so let me take a look at her.

    Hm. She has two eyes. So do I. We both have two ears, a mouth, teeth, and a tongue. We're both warm-blooded and breathing. We each have four limbs, bones, and the same internal organs. We eat and process food the same. We both have hair of some sort. Sure, there are some differences - she has whiskers and she's purring - but there are lots of similarities as well.

    How about my bird? He's also warm-blooded. He has two legs, like I do. He also has bones and mostly the same internal organs. He vocalizes and communicates with me. He eats, sleeps, and enjoys cuddling. Again, there are some differences - he has feathers instead of hair, for instance - but there are plenty of similarities there as well, even though he's not even a fellow mammal.

  8. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Also, being a very special species of animals does not prevent us from being a species of animal.  Diamonds are very special rocks, but they are still rocks.

    1. 0
      Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Are not!! Diamonds are shiny and therefore a different thing altogether. I'd like to see you pay as much for a piece of sandstone as a diamond...

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Great point, did you know that the pear tree is not really in the tree family because nothing else makes a pear.

        1. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Are you serious?? Then an apple tree isn't in the tree family either I'm  guessing

          1. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, he is joking.  Or, if you prefer, making a point by way of analogy.

            1. 0
              Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, I was being sarcastic.. I was joking as well.

              1. psycheskinner profile image80
                psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                meta-sarcasm. Too deep for me....

          2. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Correct my friend, the apple tree is in the apple tree family and therefore not a tree.

            tis a silly place.

            1. 0
              Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              ohh. because there are different apples. there are different pears too so the pear tree is in the pear tree family then since there are different types of pears?

  9. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I have studied rats a lot and they have a general peaceful and sharing approach to life.  Not perfect but probably less violent than most people would be under the same conditions.  What that has to do with anything I don't know. Rats are like rats are.  People are like people are.

  10. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 3 years ago

    I agree with psycheskinner!

    We are just that - highest form of animal and we subjugate other animals as per our wishes! Who knows if we have a soul or not. It is just the longing to have a soul and the need for it that is real, other than that we love, survive then we die!

    1. A.Villarasa profile image79
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      @prettydarkhorse:
      A lot of folks on HubPages are adamant in their belief that there is no such thing as a soul, i.e. it's existence  has never been proven by objective/empirical evidence. Question to them is: How do you prove the existence of the soul (or God for that matter), a  spiritual entity, by physical/material methodologies?

      I posit that the proof lies not in scientific formulation, but in the "longing conceptualization" as you so subtly suggested. So why do we long for a soul? Is it because, as some sage suggested, we all are, first and foremost,  spiritual beings  but whose physical reality have so subdued and overcome that spiritual reality, thus we long to actually return to that more spiritual existence?

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Some long for a soul because it was at some point evolutionary advantageous for us to think we are special.

        Longing for a soul is just wishful thinking. Kinda like longing to be 6'2" when your 5'6".

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          lol

        2. A.Villarasa profile image79
          A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          @RadMan:
          If as you said "it was at some point evolutionary advantageous for us to think we are special".... how is that "wishful thinking".

          Wishful thinking neither leads to actionable nor controllable advantages, and in the evolutionary field, totally counterintuitive and counterproductive.

          Conceptualizing that  we have souls, have nothing to do with wishful thinking... it has a to do with truthful introspection.

          1. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Plenty of things that are advantageous in evolution were "wishful" (i.e. assuming what is flattering is true).  Believing one is a member of a special sacred group better than all other people, for example, leads to having a more motivated and deadly defensive military and so helps in defending against other tribes.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image79
              A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              @Psycheskinner:
              Believing and wishing are not synonymous. In fact they are mutually exclusive.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image59
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Neither have leprechauns riding unicorns in the Kentucky Derby, but I had a personal experience of winning the Derby, and I had a little green suit, a shamrock and pointy shoes, and I was holding on to the horn.



        That begs the question back: How does one acceptance the existence of a soul if there is no physical/material evidence on which to even posit the existence?



        How do you know you're a spiritual being if there is no physical/material evidence?

        1. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          lol I got the funniest mental picture ever

          1. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I was hoping someone would. smile

            1. 0
              Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You had good luck all around...LOL

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's not how I pictured you at all, but who am I to judge?

  11. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    "Innate dignity" would not be so easily undermined by mere semantics. It would be like the dignity of the eagle or the antelope, immune to language.

 
working