"Humans are not animals"

"Humans are not animals"

True or not true, Veeky Forums? This is what my ultra-christian Baptist co-worker told me. How do I respond?

Well, Biologically of course Humans are animals.

However, "animal" generally has a sort of negative connotation accorded to it as being "barbaric" or "uncivilized", and is sometimes used as an insult.

Additionally, when people say that "humans are just animals" it tends to belie our legitimate accomplishments. Yes, humans can be selfish, tribalistic, vicious and perverted, but this does not mean that we are not at the same time also generous, compassionate, self sacrificing and dignified. It might be closer to say that while humans are animals, we are also in our own category above them, that no other animal is in.

Additionally, from a religious perspective (no matter what religion that may be) humans are always tasked with Moral and spiritual duties and honors no other animals are afforded.

Given that in a purely biological point of view, the fact that humans are indeed animals is both irrelevant and also understood by literally everyone makes it a safe assumption that anyone saying "Humans are just Animals" is either an edgy fedora or a nihilistic waste of space.

Your coworker sounds pretty alright, although in the simplest sense of the word he would be wrong. Sorry for going beyond the scope of your question.

Hes wrong, human are animals

But its one of those things where you have to lie about it in order for society to function

ie, the same way we beleive free will and self identity is an illusionm, so should the illusion that humans are not animals be kept

Humans are animals the same way tomatos are fruit.

>but this does not mean that we are not at the same time also generous, compassionate, self sacrificing and dignified.
But many of the more intelligent animals (non-human hominids, cetaceans, proboscideans, etc) have exhibited similar behavior.

>It might be closer to say that while humans are animals, we are also in our own category above them, that no other animal is in.
And why would that be?

>Additionally, from a religious perspective (no matter what religion that may be) humans are always tasked with Moral and spiritual duties and honors no other animals are afforded.
This is true.

Regarding the first point, I was not implying all animals do not exhibit the same positive traits, just that the people who say "humans are just animals" believe humans never do.

Secondly, Humans are partially in a distinctly superior category compared to animals because we posess characteristics and strengths that no animals do, like our supreme intelligence, self awareness and artistic ability.

Tell him to prove it.

>humans
>supreme intelligence
>self awareness
>artistic ability
Is this the ultimate "muh feels" argument?
>Humans can identify themselves and express their feelings and that means they're special and deserve to be treated differently because of reasons.

No other species has intelligence and artistic ability that comes close to our own. I'm not entirely sure on self-awareness, and wouldn't be surprised if there were a few animals that show a few signs of it, but it's really stupid to say that humans are not in a league above all other life.

dolphins might actually be smarter than humans though.

>it's really stupid to say that humans are not in a league above all other life.
Well of course they are, but for you to build upon any presupposition that mankind is somehow "more than" animal and hence not liable to following natural selection than you're contributing to our degradation as a species. In fact, we should be using our self awareness to recognize this and help to consciously uplift our species via selective breeding for positive traits.

>They are

Are you an alien?

Also, why should Humans improve biologically? Our species is already at the top of the food chain. Literally the only things that pose a threat to our survival as a species are ourselves. Humans don't need to improve, our societies and governments do.

Except for immortality, that'd be cool.

>Also, why should Humans improve biologically?
Why would we doom millions of people and billions yet unborn to suffer in this world in their unintelligence and inferiority instead of striving to achieve a society where less people are born (so that scarcity becomes less and less of an issue and resources less and less contested between people) and that what humans who do breed do so according to positive characteristics like intelligence or height? I can point you to the nearest street corner to tell you that the vast sludge of humanity that inhabits our earth is completely and utterly harmful, not only to themselves, but also to others around them, including the environment. This also includes intelligence, since it is a scientific fact that it is past down according to genetics. Why not breed humans as we do with cattle to create a more adaptive species? On one hand we breed livestock to be fatter/stronger and more amenable to human hands, and on the other we breed humans to be more adapted towards the very thing that separates humans from animals, our intelligence.

Since human beings are the only species who can do and understand tasks associated with maths and sciences or humanities and research and the like, why not direct our genetic progeny to that goal alone?

Take two groups, group A, and group B, group B continues their subsistence community as usual, and so does group A, but in group A, the only people who breed are the most intelligent. The scholars/scientists/engineers. If you take these two groups forward several generations, you will find that group A, because of their conscious genetic discernment, produces much more intelligent people. And since intelligent = good, then why not?

Humans are animals, but not beasts.

>humans are animals, but not this specific type of animal
Yes! Frogs are animals, but they are not reptiles. Your point???

I'd just like to say, thank you for explaining your position in a logical and noncombative way.

My problems with "breeding" humans for intelligence are:
>Actually implementing it would probably lead to (passive or non passive) genocide/religicide/some other form of discrimination
>Extra intelligence often comes with extra mental issues
>I personally believe being too intelligent, not even including social alienation, makes people less happy, but I admit that I have no proof
>Many of the problems you describe like self harm (smoking, gluttony) and environmental harm are products of poor governments or social issues, rather than a lack of human intelligence
>Having people of average intelligence can be beneficial for a society. Some degree of blind obedience to societal norms and traditions is neccesary or everyone would refuse to participate in it.

No English speaker naturally uses "animal" to refer to humans except in clearly scientific contexts. If I said "my backyard is full of animals" you are going to picture a zoo and not a party.

I say humans are animals all the time, in this context:
>Sometimes you meet animals, for example, a dog, and it's an awesome dog. Always brightens your day, dependable, and you feel genuine love for them. Then maybe some other time, you meet a different dog that's just a fucking dick. Won't stop barking at you, even when you try to appeal to it, it's a bitey, aggressive asshole for no reason. People are the same way.

>Actually implementing it would probably lead to (passive or non passive) genocide/religicide/some other form of discrimination
Yes, and this is bad because???? If our goal is to breed humans who think better, than those populations of people who do not think as well will not be able to breed. It's not as if they will be shot, but that they will not breed. Good for them! They won't have to be worried with expending the resources on maintaining another one of their young and thus lower the population so that there will be less scarcity.

>Extra intelligence often comes with extra mental issues
Can you name some examples? Most mental disorders that do not impede logical thinking capability can be overcome with psychology and therapy, even better if most of our population was hyper-intelligent, we could better interface those problems.

>I personally believe being too intelligent, not even including social alienation, makes people less happy, but I admit that I have no proof
I have to agree with you because of my own personal experience. However, I think that the reason for that lies in the fact that most intelligent people struggle finding other intelligent people to relate to. And yes, having a population of people who think about themselves and their relation to the universe and the earth will naturally produce more occasions for despondency among people, this is just how the world works.
>>Many of the problems you describe like self harm (smoking, gluttony) and environmental harm are products of poor governments or social issues, rather than a lack of human intelligence
Poor governance and poor organization in society is in turn a consequence of poor intelligence.
>Having people of average intelligence can be beneficial for a society. Some degree of blind obedience to societal norms and traditions is neccesary or everyone would refuse to participate in it.
Only in a society with scarcity, and one which has a massive volume of people.

You sound like a fucking autist. But you're probably baiting.

Humans are animals. We're biological machines that eat, sleep, shit and fuck just like every other species. There's nothing wrong with it.

That's our bodies, we're more than the sum of our parts.

We ARE our bodies.

If I take your brain and put it in another person's body, is that still you or is it the original person? Or a completely new person?

Pretty sure my brain is part of my body.

Just 1 part of it.

> If our goal is to breed humans who think better, than those populations of people who do not think as well will not be able to breed
Just a different user piping in here, but from a religious standpoint, taking the growth and evolution of your species out of the hands of God, who created us (or generally fiddling with the nuts and bolts of His creation) is a big no-no. So theologically, there is a supreme argument against your position.

Humans are animals that have developed extremely high survival instincts.

Then why hasn't any dolphin gotten to the moon or solve the Naviers-Stokes Equations?

He's fucking retarded, but dolphins got cucked by being marine animals. If they had evolved to survive on land they might have made it at least to the same point we did.

Sure thing

So... national socialism?
Adolf is that you?

Yep literally a nazi

Don't get into pandanic semantic augments. It all depends on your definition of animal, and sense we define definitions how we like, etc etc .
If you stay around these thought patterns too long you become a philosopher (of the worst sort though)
Pretty much this

>Gen 1:26–28
>And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him, male and female created He them. And God blessed them; and God said to them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.'

>Gen 9:6
>One who spills the blood of man, through/by man, his blood will be spilled, for in God's image He made man.

>Wisdom of Solomon 2:23:
>For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.

>Sirach 17:1-4:
>1: The Lord created man of the earth, and turned him into it again.
>2 He gave them few days, and a short time, and power also over the thing therein.
>3 He endued them with strength by themselves, and made them according to his image,
>4 And put the fear of man upon all flesh, and gave him dominion over beasts and fowls.

>2 Esdras 8:44:
>But people, who have been formed by your hands and are called your own image because they are made like you, and for whose sake you have formed all things – have you also made them like the farmer's seed?

Humans are superior to other creatures by their birthright.
Animals originally meant "living [creatures]", so by this context, yes we belong to animal kingdom. However, we must not underestimate Human supremacy and must not put ourselves on level of some pathetic animal. After all, everything was created to serve us, if we put it on religious perspective.

>"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….All are from the dust, and to dust all return” -Ecclesiastes 3:19-20

you dont even know context of ecclesiastes, do you?This was, what solomon thought in despair (which, btw is considered to be an blasphemy agaist the holy spirit).

afterwards his mind has changed

Btw, forgot the most important part.
>I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. (psalm 82:6)

P.S. Also:
Typically, when bible uses the word beast in context of death, or spiritual entity, it refers to a sinner:
same ecclesiastes (3:12):
>Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

While we know that when animal dies, he is poof, gone, "spirit of the beast" generally refers to a sinner and degenerate. Sometimes, concrete animals (like dogs) are used in context of certain types of sinners (like prostitutes):

>(Deut 23:18):
>Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
"dog" here, is used in context of a male prostitute (kadesh), practicing sacred prostitution

So what would be your stance on Linnaeus' writings?
>"It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, perhaps because of the term 'with human form', but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline."

>"One should not vent one's wrath on animals, Theology decree that man has a soul and that the animals are mere 'aoutomata mechanica,' but I believe they would be better advised that animals have a soul and that the difference is of nobility."
It seems he believed that man and animal were the same (both spiritually and physically), but that man has responsibility/nobility.

>Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Cor 1:25)

Lets put it simple, we are talking about wisdom of God (written in Bible) vs Wisdom of Man (in this case that of Linnaeus). While he was a great scientist, his words mean zero in Christian theology (especially in apostolic Christianity, if we realize that Linnaeus was a protestant).

As for my personal opinion, as a Christian, I disagree with putting animals and humans on the same level. For this, lets discuss a simple fact: Animal sacrifice. God has set sacrificial laws in mosaic code for different subjects in pentateuch. Now lets think logically, if animals would be on same level as humans, and have immortal soul, (that would also imply sentience, sapience, creativity, and so on and so forth), would God create strict animal sacrifice laws, or even more, allow humans to eat them. One of the most prominent examples is this:

>And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem. (exodus 13:13)
(Now you may ask, "why would God came up with such weird stuff"? Lamb is a symbol of Christ, and Donkey is that of a Human and is a prophecy of sacrifice of Christ to mankind)
Nothing special, no caring or anything, just break his neck. While on the contrary, it is written:
>One who spills the blood of man, through/by man, his blood will be spilled, for in God's image He made man. (Genesis 9:6).

And in new testament:, simplest example:
When Jesus exorcised legion, demons asked him to let them to possess colt of swines. And he just said "Sure" and they went to them and drowned them in the sea.

Now, if animals would have immortal souls, wouldn't God care about lives of those animals? So no, as a Christian, I disagree with theories of Linnaeus in theological subject

>Now, if animals would have immortal souls, wouldn't God care about lives of those animals?
>"...but I believe they would be better advised that animals have a soul and that the difference is of nobility."
Different roles, m8. Both have a soul, but man has a different purpose from that of the animals (our fossil relatives, I cannot say). Also, what about the spirit? Many people of differing denominations seem to have very different interpretations of man's spiritual nature, some going as far to argue that while man and animal have a soul (consciousness), that only man has the spirit (immortal aspect).

Is that why the Japanese kill them? Do they fear the dolphin?

>Different roles, m8. Both have a soul, but man has a different purpose from that of the animals
Thats only your opinion, while Christianity rejects it as a heresy. If you want to believe so, fine, but I am talking from Christian perceptive.

>Also, what about the spirit? Many people of differing denominations seem to have very different interpretations of man's spiritual nature, some going as far to argue that while man and animal have a soul (consciousness), that only man has the spirit (immortal aspect).

First of all, animals dont have consciousness.
Now for the rest of the thesis: soul and spirit is used interchangeably throughout the bible. However, in original language it was more complicated and had different terms. what you are referring to is called "nefesh" in Hebrew, that means basic life force, instincts and so one and so forth (but not consciousness). Its nearly same as Latin "Anima", but in English, it would be better to describe it as a "lifeforce" (perhaps). it is not equal to immortal soul, which is "ruakh" in Hebrew and in Latin... well...spiritus. Spiritus is equal to human Soul.
Also, English is not my first language, so sorry if I couldn't describe it accurately.

it depends on what we define as animal.

Personally, I see all celular life as "animal", even plants, since are basically cells that cover themselves in a shell.

These animals are wired to use every mean granted and do so at the slightest opportunity.

In that sense, with the means they attained through eovlution, the animals known as "humans" have done nothing to go beyond what is expected of them, any animal that attained the means human have would do the same we did. So in truth, nothing separates them from the rest of earth's biosphere.

So yes, humans are animals. Nothing less, nothing more.

>Thats only your opinion, while Christianity rejects it as a heresy. If you want to believe so, fine, but I am talking from Christian perceptive.
Which group? I'd guess from the formality, Catholic or Orthodox. I am Protestant by birth.

>First of all, animals dont have consciousness.
Seems like a rather complicated question, honestly. Many have argued both for and against the idea, with a few saying it can never truly be known. I for one think that, in the cases of the more intelligent animals (apes, whales/dolphins, elephants, parrots, etc) do have what can be considered consciousness of some sort.

>Also, English is not my first language, so sorry if I couldn't describe it accurately.
Honestly couldn't tell, so you're doing fine.

>Which group?
I'm Orthodox.
>Seems like a rather complicated question, honestly.
While your argument has certain point, it doesn't show full consciousness and even full consciousness is not a sign of being made in Image of God.
>Honestly couldn't tell, so you're doing fine.
thanks :)

>being made in Image of God.
I should've said having a soul, sorry
Only humans are Imago Dei