Are humans any better than animals?

[8ball]

<< How is using god to justify the killing of animals any better than using god to justify the killing of non-believers... >>


I'm not trying to justify the sensless killing of animals. Humans are justified in killing animals for good use.
Dexion- I never said humans were superior (when using the non-religous argument). Your argument about birds backs up the survival of the fittest argument.

EDIT: I will no longer use religion to try and answer the question &quot;Are humans any better than animals?&quot;. All my statements from here on (in this thread) will be based on the assumption that there is no such thing as religion.

 

[Capn]

&quot;How is using god to justify the killing of animals any better than using god to justify the killing of non-believers? In both cases you are destroying what you belief in your self-righteousness to be &quot;inferior&quot; to yourself.&quot;

You have no class. The man never said unbelievers were inferior. You're putting words into his mouth in an attempt to attack him. Very poor indeed. In fact if you want to debate religious issues it would do you well to be familiar with the beliefs before you improperly ascribe them. In fact what you are truly doing is taking your own prejudices into account in what should've have been a logical debate.

 

[Comp10]

<< You have no class. The man never said unbelievers were inferior. You're putting words into his mouth in an attempt to attack him. Very poor indeed. In fact if you want to debate religious issues it would do you well to be familiar with the beliefs before you improperly ascribe them. In fact what you are truly doing is taking your own prejudices into account in what should've have been a logical debate. >>

Now your putting words in my mouth . I apologize if my comment was taken as though I was accusing anyone of supporting the killing of non-believers, or the belief that they are inferior. I was simply attempting to point out the danger in using god alone as a justifaction of committing any act of violence, whether it be against man or animal.

 

[Dexion]

<< I never said humans were superior (when using the non-religous argument). Your argument about birds backs up the survival of the fittest argument. >>



To separate it to 2 different categories isn't logical. Non-religious or religious both don't prove that human beings are far superior in anyway to animals. Saying that human beings can think, have will, or dominate this Earth does not prove superiority. It only proves that our species can only multiply. A virus strain can do the same thing; consume, destroy, dominate and mutiply. Survival of the fittest doesn't only apply to birds, Darwin discovered EVOLUTION. Human beings have seem to run into a halt in evolution. In which we no longer adapt to the environment, instead we desperately try to create our own &quot;temporary&quot; environment that would eventually lead to our own extinction. If human beings are so superior, why are we unable to live in harmony(adapt) to our own environment?

 

[lilstevo]

I don't think humans are any better than animals. In the future who knows what will happen to us. As for the soul thing. I think it is just this word someone came up with to try and explain something that is unknown.

 

[datalink7]

again, we need to define superiority before we can say if we are superior or not.

What makes us superior? What makes us inferior? What is superiority?

 

[8ball]

I believe humans can still &quot;evolve&quot;. For example, my cousin is a carpenter. He is always in the sun. He has a permanant tan. His body is adapting to his environment.
I have never said humans are superior (If you disagree with this, see the edit in my last post). The most superior animal (to include insects) is probably the cock roach.

 

[Maetryx]

The problem with saying &quot;Religion aside blah blah blah....&quot; is that you're operating only within a naturalistic, secular worldview. Yet you're asking a question that transcends that worldview.

Ponder this: if some elements of some religions are factually correct, then those facts *are* scientific. When you exclude facts a priori, then ask a question which begs those facts, you're going to be swimming in a tight little circle for a long time.

You assume naturalistic macro evolution with your original question, but then start asking about the human soul. You're mincing your worldviews.

Since I don't subscribe to macro-evolution, and you characterize my worldview as a religion (even though if it really happened the way I think it did then my view *is* science) I can't answer your question. The question can only properly be answered by someone with an open mind that is willing to consider the philosophical possibility of a supreme Being.

Then we could dive into the ontological, the teleological and the cosmological arguments for the existence of God. Because your question must be answered by getting down to the worldview abstraction layer.

 

[SVTPower]

Humans are Animals

 

[jhu]

speaking of animals, we just dissected a dog today in dog lab. unfortunately, we prematurely killed her by accidently poking the catheter too hard into the femoral artery. apparently it poked through and she was bleeding. and we were wondering why the blood pressure kept dropping...

 

[SVTPower]

speaking of animals, we just dissected a dog today in dog lab. unfortunately, we prematurely killed her by accidently poking the catheter too hard into the femoral artery. apparently it poked through and she was bleeding. and we were wondering why the blood pressure kept dropping

WTF???

 

[jhu]

no, i'd still take a nubile human female over a goat

 

[Zeeliv]

<< You've been watching too much Red Dwarf. >>



Nah, you can never watch too much Red Dwarf.

 

[Missus]

I thought humans were animals....

 

[VoodooExtreme]

<< Bah, they shouldn't make themselves taste good then.. >>



Amen to that

 

[Azraele]

<<Humans have a soul, given by God. Animals dont, they were created for man. >>

I disagree, I think all animals are ensouled.

 

[thebestMAX]

Humans are animals. If you dont believe me, watch your local news or read a newspaper.

 

[LadyJessica]

<< Bah, they shouldn't make themselves taste good then >>



Humans are pretty tasty too. But I prefer chicken because it's healthier.

 

[hpkeeper]

LJ... you didn't just get back from seeing hannibal did you?

 

[Elledan]

<<<<Humans have a soul, given by God. Animals dont, they were created for man. >>

I disagree, I think all animals are ensouled. >>

How can you possible say that either only humans are 'ensouled' or humans and animals are both 'ensouled'?

The 'soul-theory' was created to explain why we Humans are so 'intelligent', because they couldn't imagine that it was a result of some simple evolution.
This theory isn't based on anything but myths and conflicts with experiments. You know for example that if you cut some connections in a Human brain, that that person can suddenly become totally different?

A good example is that of the accident of Phineas Gage, an explosives-expert for the American Railroad compagny. In 1848, his skull was pierced by an iron pin when he was working with some explosives before his assistant had put sand on those explosives.
He did survive this accident, but his personality was changed forever. Before the accident, Gage was a nice and friendly guy, who treated his family very well. After the accident he was asocial, cursed constantly, got angry for no reason and was very unreliable with appointments. He was fired not soon after and he died twelve years later due to an epileptic attack.

This story shows that 'personality' is located in a part of the brain, just like speach, motorical functions, sight, etc.

Experiments with chimpanzee show us that when the nerves between the prefrontal lobes and and the rest of the brains are cut, the personality of those chimpanzee changes dramatically, they suddenly became either very friendly or very agressive. (lobotomy, formerly used to treat mental illness)

 

[poop]

What does it matter? We are all going to stop being eventually. You cannot be 'better' than other species since we (all living things) are all nothing in the long run.

If humans find a way to preserve their essence (if we truly have one), then we will be 'better', as we will have transcended life and death. I am referrning to memory/thought process preservation by artificial means.

As of now, all living things are equal. They all serve one purpose: propogation of the species. It drives EVERY species on the planet. Humans are no different. We are simply mobile matter that is chemically driven to create facsimilies of itself.

 

[Ornery]

What makes your &quot;pet&quot; animal any better than other animals? What makes an animal better than an insect? Is your pet fish any better than a wild bird?

Why doesn't PETA worry about livestock as much as wild animals? Is there a difference?

Is a squirrel less than a dog? Is a cat less than a dog?

 

[Pepsi90919]

humans ARE animals...

 

[Comp10]

<< This story shows that 'personality' is located in a part of the brain, just like speach, motorical functions, sight, etc.

Experiments with chimpanzee show us that when the nerves between the prefrontal lobes and and the rest of the brains are cut, the personality of those chimpanzee changes dramatically, they suddenly became either very friendly or very agressive. (lobotomy, formerly used to treat mental illness) >>

I agree that damage to the brain could certainly affect ones personality, which does not however, disprove the possibility of a soul for humans or animals. If as many believe, the body is a vehicle of sorts for the soul, then it stands to reason that if you damage that vehicle, you could also damage the ability for the soul and body to effectively communicate, hence causing a personality change. For example, take away half the keys on your keyboard, and that will certainly affect the way you communicate through your computer .

 

[tim0thy]

i thought humans WERE animals. ooga booga.