# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Are humans special or are we nothing more the mere rabbits

## hitchhiker

I wonder if man is something special in this world or are we just merely as special as rabbits or any other animal for that. What I am saying, is man special in the way are we able to truely concieve the meaning of life or are we just ignorant for thinking that we can. The rabbit I am talking about is the simpale creature that goes through life wanting nothing more then to reporduce and just go through life eating and having sex eating and having sex. No questions about life no thoughts or evening careing to think about itor better yet they know that they have no ablilty to understand the conseption of life so why insult who ever started it by thinking they can. So what are we, are we special by haveing the ability to undestand life or are we stupid for even thinking we can are we jsut as important as rabbits.

----------


## Virgil

Well the last time I checked I was typing on a computer using an alphabet and a coherent language, sitting on a cushion chair, inside a building with walls and doors and windows, and outside were cars driving by and airplanes flying over head. Other than man, what animal can create such things? I've heard this argument that man is just another animal. The real human animals (jackasses really) are those that believe such an argument.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I've heard this argument that man is just another animal. The real human animals (jackasses really) are those that believe such an argument.


I don't see why the two positions are mutually contradictory. Humans are unique animals, but we're certainly animals.

To answer the original question, our grasp on the meaning of life may not be perfect, but we're certainly well ahead of rabbits in that respect (despite the preocupation both species have with food and sex).

----------


## Virgil

> I don't see why the two positions are mutually contradictory. Humans are unique animals, but we're certainly animals.
> 
> To answer the original question, our grasp on the meaning of life may not be perfect, but we're certainly well ahead of rabbits in that respect (despite the preocupation both species have with food and sex).


Well obviously any living thing the way we have catagorized it is either a plant or an animal. But the difference between our closest seeming animal is so far and away distant that I maintain we are our own catagory. It is not even close. I maintain that we have artificially catagorized in this dual mode. And so it seems that way. The next time I see a chimp not just use a computer, but design it, make the components, and put it together so it works, then I'll concede the point.

As to your flawed logic ("I don't see why the two positions are mutually contradictory"), humans are also made of carbon, but we're not rocks. Or do you think we are?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> As to your flawed logic ("I don't see why the two positions are mutually contradictory"), humans are also made of carbon, but we're not rocks. Or do you think we are?





> an‧i‧mal  /ˈ&#230;nəməl/
> –noun
> 1.	any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.





> rock1  /rɒk/ 
> –noun
> 1.	a large mass of stone forming a hill, cliff, promontory, or the like.
> 2.	_Geology._
> a.	mineral matter of variable composition, consolidated or unconsolidated, assembled in masses or considerable quantities in nature, as by the action of heat or water.


If your definition of 'rock' is 'anything made even partly of carbon', then yes, human beings are rocks. The point is that any definition of the word 'animal' that includes apes and dolfins and insects and iguanas and parrots but not humans is a bizzare one.

----------


## Virgil

> If your definition of 'rock' is 'anything made even partly of carbon', then yes, human beings are rocks. The point is that any definition of the word 'animal' that includes apes and dolfins and insects and iguanas and parrots but not humans is a bizzare one.


Yes, see. It's all in how you lay down the definitions.

Sorry if I got a little petulant Joe. This is a little bit of a sore subject for me. Perhaps I'm a throw back to the Renaissance, but whether through God or by chance, I believe that man is the pinnicle of earthly creations. 


The gap between man and any other living thing is so immense that to lump them together is silly to me.

----------


## Nightmare9870

It doesn't matter if we understand/think we understand the meaning of life, what makes humans special is the fact that we have the ability to question the meaning of life in the first place. Last I checked, the rabbit didn't question its existance or wonder why it was put here.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Sorry if I got a little petulant Joe. This is a little bit of a sore subject for me. Perhaps I'm a throw back to the Renaissance, but whether through God or by chance, I believe that man is the pinnicle of earthly creations.
> 
> 
> The gap between man and any other living thing is so immense that to lump them together is silly to me.


You are, of course, entitled to your opinions (and I've heard crazier ones).

Consider this, if you will: a tapeworm and a dolphin surely have less in common than a monkey and a person, but I don't think anybody would hesitate to call both dolphins and tapeworms animals.

----------


## Invictus

> So what are we, *are we special* by haveing the ability to undestand life or are we stupid for even thinking we can are we jsut as important as rabbits.


Of _course_ we are special. Unless I've forgotten the meaning of the word. However, it is clear that we do not understand life, as far as I am concerned. 

The fact that we can even question makes us special.

The issue of importance is a wholly different topic.






> You are, of course, entitled to your opinions (and I've heard crazier ones).
> 
> 
> Consider this, if you will: a tapeworm and a dolphin *surely* have less in common than a monkey and a person, but I don't think anybody would hesitate to call both dolphins and tapeworms animals.


It seems clear that it is possible that the human brain, its consciousness, separates the human from the animal.

Surely? Why? I believe you are speaking genetically. Are we thus limited in responsive form?

The mind is what separates us so dramatically, rather than anything genetic.

P.S. Isn't this a philosophical discussion?

----------


## hitchhiker

Maybe it is that the rabbit knows by instinct that there is no true way to understan life and it is just insulting to the creater (if that is what it is) to even try to concieve the idea and this is not on are we the same as rabbits here on the Earth becuase I am not a idiot that thinks that becuase it is obvuise that we are greater then them but through the eyes what created us(although it could be nothing at all and this whole discusion is futile) we are equal even as we might have computers and segways and the brain to process new ideas of goverment but we still live on this Earth and **** like animals and have the instict just like a ape, dog, or yeah even a rabbit and the other point is what gives us the right to think we can pounder about our existence becuase I am sure it is far more then we can comprehend. or it may be as simple as a cell changing to two then to two then to four,ext.

----------


## Kurtz

> Well the last time I checked I was typing on a computer using an alphabet and a coherent language, sitting on a cushion chair, inside a building with walls and doors and windows, and outside were cars driving by and airplanes flying over head. Other than man, what animal can create such things? I've heard this argument that man is just another animal. The real human animals (jackasses really) are those that believe such an argument.


 Aside from the obvious logical fallacies, there is no sound argument whatsoever other than the personal inability to research scientific facts, evolutionary trends, genetic information and many of the other types of data that answer the question asked in the thread. I can only hope that the ignorance that is presented by the refusal to educate the mass public with facts instead of personal opinions and "divine" ignorance can be curbed and redirected in a scientific and logical direction. I also point out the innate superior humanity complex that is used in the last line of the post. It is a classic example of a basic logical fallacy and should not even be considered as an intelligent attempt at an argument. Moreover, I will be more than happy to entertain any of the authors ideas as to why he/she thinks that humans deserve to be put upon a pedestal when being compared to other animals (as long as they are intelligent and not based on the inability for the person to see a different lateral perspective). So please tell us your reasons for being led to believe that man is the pinnacle of earthly creation.

----------


## Bluebiird

*Humans are nothing special at all. We search for the meaning of life, and think we know it. Here's what the meaning of life is. Sex, reproduction, passing on our genes. That's why we exits. That's why anything exist. We struggle to preserve ourselves, but for what? We're all going to die in the end. Humanity will die eventually, given enough time. Our only goal is to survive.
So, knowing this, we are no different to the simple rabbit, or the rat or any other animal. 
The rabit has simple problems, which it can't control. It can't decide what predators will want to eat it. It can't decide to get run over by a car. Those things just happen, beyond the rabits control.
We think that we have more problems than they do, but those problems are of our own creation. We created knives and weapons, now we kill each other with them. We created complex jobs and roles and now we strive to get out of them or climb higher.
Humanity must be the laughing stock of the natural world. because we struggle to understand questions like what is the meaning of life, when they already know it. Without a doubt, humans are the dumbest creatures in existance, but they think they are the smartest.
*

----------


## Kurtz

*"Humans are nothing special at all. We search for the meaning of life, and think we know it. Here's what the meaning of life is. Sex, reproduction, passing on our genes. That's why we exits. That's why anything exist. We struggle to preserve ourselves."*

I agree with this view. Personally, I enjoy living in a world that has no "meaning". The absence of any true purpose is what makes anything possible.

----------


## Turk

Humans are not special, i'm special.  :FRlol:   :Wink:

----------


## Orionsbelt

Certainly at the base level humans are animals. Some animals are strong, others are swift, others somewhat clever. It seems matters of degree. As far as we can discern chimps are aware of each other and themselves, use tools. I have witnessed what I beleive to be this kind of recognition in bears. As Virgil has pointed out however there is empirical evidence which suggests a distinguishing feature. Perhaps not unique but certainly further developed. Characterizing that feature is another matter. Is it manipulation of symbols? Speach? ... or friendship, love etc. Isn't this at the center of the cyclone however. The "spirit" denies the body and the "body" denies the spirit.... or so some are so convinced as to punish one or the other to amazing degrees. (I don't count myself among the proud).  :Rolleyes:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> It seems clear that it is possible that the human brain, its consciousness, separates the human from the animal.


Humans _are_ animals, friend. There is nothing to separate us. Yes, we have much bigger and more powerfull brains than any other animal, but brain size is not what determines kingdom. One could just as easily say that elephants are clearly separated from animals becuase they have much bigger and more powerful noses than any other.



> “Surely”? Why? I believe you are speaking genetically. Are we thus limited in responsive form?


Take any category you like. Humans and great apes have much in common in terms of cognative ability, but dolphins and tapeworms have very little in common in that area. Dolphins and tapeworms are, in fact, evolving in oposite directions in that respect (it's to the tapeworm's advantage to be as simple as possible).



> The mind is what separates us so dramatically, rather than anything genetic.
> 
> P.S. Isn't this a philosophical discussion?


The human mind (or at least the organ that makes it possible) is built by genetics, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. And yes it is a philosophical discussion. We're off topic. It happens.

----------


## byquist

While animals often naturally care for each other (wasn't there a giant turtle who cared for a baby rhino during the Indonesian tidal wave?), humans additionally have that word "unselfishness" in the dictionary. When people grow in maturity they sometimes enter a phase of life where they direct attention to others, not their own wants and wishes. Charlotte Joko Beck touchs on this "otherness," who, assuming she's still alive, must be over 100. This quest towards yielding self in the service of others in no easy task. Chances are they went through a selfish hellishness on the route to getting there. Don't know that animals strive towards character-transformation, but pets certainly aim to please, are devoted, enjoy treats, and know how to be happy, often more than some of the crabby and complaining humans I've crossed paths with.

----------


## Turk

If someone can say human is just an animal, then it means they don't believe in anything. Isn't it? No moral, no God because we are animal ha? 

I don't believe human is just an animal. That's why i believe in moral, goodness and justice. 

Animals can go to jungles.

----------


## Bluebiird

*Many humans have a distinct lack of morals these days. Actually, thet always have. Always fighting over this and that and stealing from each other*

----------


## lit_dork

I think one thing people do too often is try to separate themselves from nature, meaning that they think they are somehow very different or better than animals. It is true that one of humanity's greatest advantages is our higher brain power. We have a written language and we can communicate abstract ideas, like we're doing now. But is this so much better than a cat's ability to see well at night, or a dog's superior senses of hearing and smell? I personally think that humans are only another species of animal, even though we may be at the top of the chain. I mean, if we were so much greater, would we be destroying the world around us?

----------


## optimisticnad

i have a problem with the title of this thread! why 'mere rabbits?'

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> If someone can say human is just an animal, then it means they don't believe in anything. Isn't it? No moral, no God because we are animal ha?


Oh, _non sequiter_. Where would philosophical discussion be without you?

----------


## ShoutGrace

> Aside from the obvious logical fallacies, there is no sound argument whatsoever other than the personal inability to research scientific facts, evolutionary trends, genetic information and many of the other types of data that answer the question asked in the thread.


The question asked in the thread was faulty, quite obviously. The title of the thread, Are humans special or are we nothing more than mere rabbits, is, in my opinion, and easily answered question, and one that *Virgil* nailed perfectly.

Special: 

_- Distinguished by some unusual quality.

- Of a distinct or particular kind or character.
-	Being a particular one; particular, individual, or certain._

Human beings are distinct and separate from rabbits, and this is a conclusion I am only to happy to defend.




> I can only hope that the ignorance that is presented by the refusal to educate the mass public with facts instead of personal opinions and "divine" ignorance can be curbed and redirected in a scientific and logical direction.


What are you on about? Who said anything about the mass public? Or is *Virgil* the mass public spokesperson? What does your comment here have to do with the opening question?




> I also point out the innate superior humanity complex that is used in the last line of the post.


Im glad you're doing that, because that was my favourite part.




> It is a classic example of a basic logical fallacy and should not even be considered as an intelligent attempt at an argument.



Well, ignoring the monstrous fact that *Virgil* may not have intended that statement to be an argumentative piece, what exactly is the fallacy?





> Moreover, I will be more than happy to entertain any of the authors ideas as to why he/she thinks that humans deserve to be put upon a pedestal when being compared to other animals *(as long as they are intelligent and not based on the inability for the person to see a different lateral perspective).*


I suppose Ill have to wait for *Virgil* on this one. Prithee, where did they say that mankind should be put on a pedestal? That could be where they will go with it, but as it stands didnt *Virgil* simply differentiate between mankind and animals? 

Fantastic job of anticipating *Virgil*'s inabilities, by the way.  :Rolleyes:  





> So please tell us your reasons for being led to believe that man is the pinnacle of earthly creation.



More words youre putting in somebody elses mouth. I can tell you are an adept, critical reader, and not one to easily project your own thoughts onto anothers.

----------


## Turk

> Oh, _non sequiter_. Where would philosophical discussion be without you?


My style is not philosophic (because i'm honest and i like to talk clear) but the thing i've told is completely philosophic (because i'm a philosopher from the inside)  :Brow: . 

Seriously, as Dostoevski told: "If there's no God everything is permissible". If you say "Humans are just animals" then what's moral? What's law? What's goodness? Every good thing we believe is completely leans on idealistic stuff and God. And your point of view is not so different than Nazi point of view. If you think human is animal then you mean human life has no worth. And as we know from the history this kind of mentality just brought death, famine and vanish to the mankind.

----------


## Scheherazade

I guess, to be able to answer this question, we need to agree on the definition of 'animal' (which is, I am well aware, something almost impossible). 

American Heritage Dictionary states that an animal is _'A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.'_. If we agree on this definition, then, no doubt, we _are_ animals.

However, the same dictionary also adds that an animal can be 'An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.' So it seems like we are not the only ones who are struggling to decide whether we are animals or not.

I am not sure if human intelligence is enough to declare our species different from other animals. It is also possible to claim that humans were forced to develop intelligence and invent certain things because they were/are so inferior to most animals physically; they would have been extinct by now without those, maybe? Eg, we do not have a fur to protect us from cold so we had to find a way to warm ourselves (hence fire); we are no way good runners compared to many in the animal kingdom so we had to find ways to transport ourselves etc...

As for morality... I think it is good to keep in mind that morality is learned; not something we are born with (still so after thousands of years interestingly) and when left to our devices, we can turn into ugly 'creatures'. I am not an expert, however, I don't think there are many species in the animal kingdom which would kill, conspire, back-stab out of jealousy, greed or simple desire for obtaining pleasure. When 'animals' kill, it is mostly out of a survivial instinct, is it not?

Personaly speaking, by and large, I find 'animals' far more superior to humans, both physically and 'morally', and, there are some rare cases when I would much rather compared to an 'animal' than a 'humanbeing' and would consider it an honour.

----------


## Orionsbelt

> Seriously, as Dostoevski told: "If there's no God everything is permissible". If you say "Humans are just animals" then what's moral? What's law? What's goodness? Every good thing we believe is completely leans on idealistic stuff and God.


I don't think morality is dependant on God. God is mostly just a big club used to beat on those who have not developed some notion of compassion. Interestingly eternal rewards are the same one available here on earth only delayed until a time where you have demonstrated the ablity to go without them. SOmewhat like getting a loan!  :FRlol:  Certainly Confucius would not agree nor do I doubt anyone in ancient Greece that God is required for morality. 

Having said that, you may have something here. The idea of morality, defined as the notion that I should check my biological satisfaction on my own in favor of an ideal, may be one of the clinchers. Mathematics may be another. In the sense that humans have the ability to formulate an ideal. Birds and beavers build. Apes use simple tools and have a social structure. Elephants grieve so some typical "human" behaviors are shared to some degree. No way to test that I can think of. Thanks for all the fish. :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Taliesin

Humans have the power of abstract thinking. Other animals don't.

----------


## Turk

> I don't think morality is dependant on God. God is mostly just a big club used to beat on those who have not developed some notion of compassion. Interestingly eternal rewards are the same one available here on earth only delayed until a time where you have demonstrated the ablity to go without them. SOmewhat like getting a loan! Certainly Confucius would not agree nor do I doubt anyone in ancient Greece that God is required for morality.


I believe it's certainly dependant to God. If you think opposite then i would like to know your thoughts about morality, goodness and law.




> American Heritage Dictionary states that an animal is 'A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.'. If we agree on this definition, then, no doubt, we are animals


This is over-simplisizying the ideas and things. Like Aristo logic. If i would say; "we have 2 arms and monkeys have two arms too then we are monkeys" would it be sensible? You'r doing that right now. We have biological specialities so animals have too, so we are same. Is this logical?




> As for morality... I think it is good to keep in mind that morality is learned; not something we are born with (still so after thousands of years interestingly) and when left to our devices, we can turn into ugly 'creatures'. I am not an expert, however, I don't think there are many species in the animal kingdom which would kill, conspire, back-stab out of jealousy, greed or simple desire for obtaining pleasure. When 'animals' kill, it is mostly out of a survivial instinct, is it not?


You clash with urself here, you say we have greed, conspire, we kill, back-stab out of jealousy etc. SO WE HAVE RIGHT OF CHOOSE. But you forget saying we have free will too. An animal have to kill unconsicously. But a human doesn't have to kill, isn't have to be jealous or greedy. If you have strong moral and if you are a true believer it'll protect from this kind od manners. And i really don't understand how we can have stronger moral values if we accept "we are animal"? 

At the end, i can clearly say if there's no God there's no meaning in this life too. There's no good and no bad. So racism, killing, thievery etc. shouldn't be crime. 

I wonder if since you say you believe we are animal, do you believe in evolution? If you believe it, can you say white race is supreme than black race?

----------


## Virgil

Wow, this thread has taken off parabolically since I last checked. 

I'm not sure I know where to start and I probably won't be able to respond to everyone.

I again I repeat, it depends on how you set up the definitions. You can look at man as being made up of predominantly of carbon and water and yet we are not classified as a rock or a puddle. I will concede that man shares many qualities with animals. But the distinction between man and it's closest similar animal is so vast that we are certainly separate from them. I know I go against the grain of common thinking. So be it. I'm not a common person. The last several hundred years have been an attack on the nobility and genious of man, and perhaps that's what insults me. Perhaps man is not the center of the universe, and perhaps he is. We have yet to find any life form that compares with man, in his ability to think, to create, to build, and to establish systems. I make my living designing and using my human ingenuity, I entertain myself by reading literature created by other men (not animals), and I pass my time by attempting to create myself. I know no other animal that can do any of that. You want to consider yourself an animal, I choose to see you as you truly are, a jackass.

To the person who thought he understood the ancient Greeks, Socrates was condemned and executed on charges he violated the morality established by the gods.

As to those who bring up evolution, it took the wolf, one of the most enduring and crafty of species, 48 million years from where it originally separated from its previos species, and around 13 million years to arrive at its current form. Man at it's origin is perhaps just two million years and homo sapiens, man in its current form, a few hundred thousand years. These are orders of magnitude different, not subtle differences. And when you consider what man has done in the last several thousand years, it is quite evident (mass cities, buildings, airplanes, governments, even go out into space and the moon) to anyone who is not a jackass that we are dealing with something different altogether.




> The question asked in the thread was faulty, quite obviously. The title of the thread, “Are humans special or are we nothing more than mere rabbits,” is, in my opinion, and easily answered question, and one that Virgil nailed perfectly.


Yes, that was the question and the implication imbedded in the question is that man is no more than a rabbit.




> Aside from the obvious logical fallacies, there is no sound argument whatsoever other than the personal inability to research scientific facts, evolutionary trends, genetic information and many of the other types of data that answer the question asked in the thread.


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  I maintain your reasoning is illogical by its refusal to see the world in front of your eyes. Do you live in a house with walls and paint or do you live in a rat hole? Do you cook your dinner or do tear at it with mouth? Open your eyes. Education is more than some dumb professor's lectures.

I proudly put man on a pedestal.

----------


## miss tenderness

Why rabbit?why not ape! Though I think it's inappropriate to compare human,who eats and have sex like animals but also they think,create,build,worship,discover .etc ,to animals.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Seriously, as Dostoevski told: "If there's no God everything is permissible". If you say "Humans are just animals" then what's moral? What's law? What's goodness?


What changed, exaclty? I'm not advocating any sort of brand new philosohy here, I'm stating a simple truth. Human beings are animals and are subject to the same laws of biology that all other animals are. If _you_ want to throw away all your morals in light of that, ok, but I think I'll hang on to mine. 


> Every good thing we believe is completely leans on idealistic stuff and God.


I hate to break this to you, but atheists are not exactly known for their amoral kill-crazy rampages.


> And your point of view is not so different than Nazi point of view.


It's not a real internet discussion until somebody compares me to Hitler and the Nazis, is it? I'm an anarchist, for crap's sake, I'm the opposite of a fascist.


> If you think human is animal then you mean human life has no worth.


That's exactly the _non sequiter_ I was refering to. I happen to quite like human life, actually.


> And as we know from the history this kind of mentality just brought death, famine and vanish to the mankind.


Famine? I'm going to cause crops to fail by stating the obvious? What in the name of buttermilk pancakes are you talking about?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I believe it's certainly dependant to God. If you think opposite then i would like to know your thoughts about morality, goodness and law.


How about empathy as a basis for morality? How about reason? How about these guys: http://www.secularhumanism.org/? If you don't think atheistic morality is possible, you need to open your eyes.




> This is over-simplisizying the ideas and things. Like Aristo logic. If i would say; "we have 2 arms and monkeys have two arms too then we are monkeys" would it be sensible? You'r doing that right now. We have biological specialities so animals have too, so we are same. Is this logical?


The word 'monkey' doesn't mean 'a thing with two arms'. It means 'a small to medium size primate with a prehensile tail that typically lives in trees in tropical countries'. 'Monkey' is a word that describes a group of things that does not include humans. 'Animal' is a word that describes a group of things that does include humans. _This is extremely easy to grasp._




> And i really don't understand how we can have stronger moral values if we accept "we are animal"?


Apparently not, no. I personally think that if the only thing that keeps us in line is the promise of heaven and the threat of hell, we're a fairly sorry lot.




> At the end, i can clearly say if there's no God there's no meaning in this life too. There's no good and no bad. So racism, killing, thievery etc. shouldn't be crime.


Some of us have found plenty of meaning in our lives without God.




> I wonder if since you say you believe we are animal, do you believe in evolution? If you believe it, can you say white race is supreme than black race?


What? How do you figure? If species evolve (and they do, humans included) then black people are inherently inferior? Yes, ok, caucasians have one or two adaptations that give them an advantage _when it comes to living in Scandinavia_. There is no evolutionary evidence that would even remotely suggest that white people are inherently smart or better or more capable or whatever.


Sorry if it seem like I'm picking on you, Turk, but you're making me angry.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Perhaps man is not the center of the universe, and perhaps he is. We have yet to find any life form that compares with man, in his ability to think, to create, to build, and to establish systems. I make my living designing and using my human ingenuity, I entertain myself by reading literature created by other men (not animals), and I pass my time by attempting to create myself. I know no *other* animal that can do any of that. You want to consider yourself an animal, I choose to see you as you truly are, a jackass.


You know what? I agree that humans are pretty great. But there is no getting around the fact that we are vertibrates, animals, mammals and primates. We have built ourselves a pretty good (although far from perfect) society up from nothing and we should be very proud of that, but saying that this makes us somehow un-animal is false. It doesn't matter how many great works of literature or amazing sculptures or breathtaking temples we build, we will still be multicellular organisms of the kingdom Animalia.

Suggestion: maybe if you want to be taken seriously, you should not label everybody who disagrees with you a jackass. That, in itself, is a fairly jackassy thing to do.

----------


## ShoutGrace

> An animal have to kill unconsicously.


Has anybody read the poem Crow Tyrannosaurus?

----------


## Scheherazade

> This is over-simplisizying the ideas and things. Like Aristo logic. If i would say; "we have 2 arms and monkeys have two arms too then we are monkeys" would it be sensible? You'r doing that right now. We have biological specialities so animals have too, so we are same. Is this logical?


That is not my definition but a definition taken from a respectable dictionary and I think to compare that definition to 'we have 2 arms and monkeys have two arms too then we are monkeys' is a much greater over simplification.


> You clash with urself here, you say we have greed, conspire, we kill, back-stab out of jealousy etc. SO WE HAVE RIGHT OF CHOOSE. But you forget saying we have free will too. An animal have to kill unconsicously. But a human doesn't have to kill, isn't have to be jealous or greedy. If you have strong moral and if you are a true believer it'll protect from this kind od manners. And i really don't understand how we can have stronger moral values if we accept "we are animal"?


I think you have misunderstoof my point. I agree with you that humans have a choice and animals kill instinctively. However, despite having a choice, on many occasions, humans will opt for calculated, cold blooded murder, which, in my opinion, is much worse than 'animalistic' killing.


> At the end, i can clearly say if there's no God there's no meaning in this life too. There's no good and no bad. So racism, killing, thievery etc. shouldn't be crime.


I am not sure how you reach to the conclusion that if there is no God, there is no meaning in life. If believing in the existing of a deity makes your life more meaningful to you, fair enough but please do not assume that everyone needs such a being to lead a life which is meaningful to them.



> I wonder if since you say you believe we are animal, do you believe in evolution? If you believe it, can you say white race is supreme than black race?


I do believe in evolution; I do believe that we will evolve further. However, I don't see how race comes into play here so I will not get into that argument.


> We have yet to find any life form that compares with man, in his ability to think, to create, to build, and to establish systems.


To this day, we are yet to find another planet similar to Earth in the space; however, does that mean that Eart is simply different planet or that Earth is not a planet? 


> I make my living designing and using my human ingenuity, I entertain myself by reading literature created by other men (not animals), and I pass my time by attempting to create myself. I know no other animal that can do any of that.


I am reminded of something someone told me once. Back in the university days, when I was young and cocky (as one often is), I was somewhat critical of a close friend because she opted for a short diploma course and got a job right after the higschool (not necessarily because she could not cope with the requirements of academic world or financially she could not). When I expressed my opinions to her, in the hope that I could encourage her to get a degree, she thought for a while and said, 'you know what, not all of us want to be doctors, lawyers or teachers... This world also needs secretaries and assisstants... and talented ones for that.' I think she was mature beyond her years when she said that. Similarly, this world needs all sort of species and just because we, as humanbeings, idealise certain activities or values(however 'good' they might be for us), it does not necessarily mean that those things are the pinnacle of every species' existence.

----------


## Scheherazade

> You want to consider yourself an animal, I choose to see you as you truly are, a jackass.


*Virgil>* Please avoid name calling during discussions. Different views are not necessarily less worthy nor are their holders.

----------


## ShoutGrace

> I am not sure if human intelligence is enough to declare our species different from other animals.


This is why this entire thread can be distilled into a game of semantics. As *Taliesin* put it:




> Humans have the power of abstract thinking. Other animals don't.


Surely, this is a “difference.” It obviously makes us “special,” according to the dictionary definition provided above.




> As for morality... I think it is good to keep in mind that morality is learned; not something we are born with (still so after thousands of years interestingly)


Of course morality is learned. Moral values need to be observed and then apprehended. The fact that humans need time to do this doesn’t speak to the nature of the values which are being explored.





> Personaly speaking, by and large, I find 'animals' far more superior to humans, both physically and 'morally', and, there are some rare cases when I would much rather compared to an 'animal' than a 'humanbeing' and would consider it an honour.


That may certainly be the case, though surely it helps to illustrate the differences between “humans” and “the rest of creation”? Being special doesn’t mean being better; being special means: 
_
Special: 

- Distinguished by some unusual quality.

- Of a distinct or particular kind or character.
- Being a particular one; particular, individual, or certain._

This could attribute itself to both “good” and “bad.” Dahmer was special. Jack the Ripper was special. Vlad the Impaler was very, very special. Humans are special because they’ve created nuclear weapons, guns with hollow points, machines like the “Rack”, symphonies, discriminations, cameras small enough to be safely inserted into a human artery, and meth.

Why have humans done these things? We have special attributes, characteristics, and abilities which _distinguish_ us from the rest of the animals on this planet.

Whether this “speciality” specific to humans is by and large beneficial or not isn’t the main topic, though it certainly leads from that other.




> At the end, i can clearly say if there's no God there's no meaning in this life too.


Agreed. *cuppajoe_9*, you can obviously find meaning, but I think we’re agreed that given atheism as true, it ultimately isn’t rational, correct?




> There's no good and no bad.


Very much agreed.

_“There aint no sin and there aint no virtue. There's just stuff people do.”_




> So racism, killing, thievery etc. shouldn't be crime.


Though not here. This is too large a leap – even if designating these things as crimes wouldn't be rational, it should still be done.





> I again I repeat, it depends on how you set up the definitions.


Exactly. I think that what *Invictus* was getting at has to do with the definitions. Some have decided that the only one to use is the genetic. What if we differentiate “special” on the ability to reason, develop complicated systems based on ideals which only exist in thought?

Why not examine human beings and rabbits in as many contexts as possible and see if humans are “special”?





> I proudly put man on a pedestal.


Though I hesitate here. I find mankind's actions far too abhorrent and objectionable to praise it as a whole. For every impressive, healthy, liberating and progressive thing we've done or accomplished, we've done equally disgusting and terrible things. As *Scheherazade* said, “and when left to our devices, we can turn into ugly 'creatures'”.

Man is both great and ugly.




> I personally think that if the only thing that keeps us in line is the promise of heaven and the threat of hell, we're a fairly sorry lot.


Where, _exactly_, was this stated or implied? Other than your mind, of course. I can't find it in any of the posts on this thread.




> But there is no getting around the fact that we are vertibrates, animals, mammals and primates.


Who is saying we aren’t? Isn’t the question, “Are human beings special or are we nothing more than mere rabbits,” rather than, “Do human beings reside in the human created system of classification attributed to life on earth?”




> It doesn't matter how many great works of literature or amazing sculptures or breathtaking temples we build, we will still be multicellular organisms of the kingdom Animalia.


Of course we are, and of course we are infinitely different than the rest of the organisms represented there.




> I happen to quite like human life, actually.


You can like it to your hearts content. But in the end, as *Turk* pointed out, it has no more worth than a tapeworms or a dolphins, does it? After all, 




> Humans are animals, friend. There is *nothing* to separate us.

----------


## Scheherazade

> That may certainly be the case, though surely it helps to illustrate the differences between “humans” and “the rest of creation”?


I agree with you. We are different from other species just like fish is different from bugs and I don't think that being different means being superior. My comment was in reply to the comments that humanbeings should be put on a pedestal because they are different in their own way.

All creatures are different and special in their own ways. Fish can stay under the water and swim, birds fly, most 'animals' can navigate through their very complicated _and_ developed senses, some can see in the dark; they hear and smell 'better' than us. They are, we are, all different and special in our own way. Some of the other animals lack and we have do not necessarily mean we are superior.

Just to clarify my own stand on this, I consider humans just another species native to planet Earth. Simply because we are different does not mean we are superior.

----------


## Virgil

I guess it's all in one's mind. I choose to regard man's nobility. 

No where did I say we were perfect. Man's inhumanity to man is another distinguishing feature that separates from animals. No creature can have the complexity of thought (even wrong thought) to establish the world and society as it exists.

----------


## tiny explorer

go Virgil!!...i support you there.and i think none exceeds the existence of humans.considering the things that which we are unique from other creatures.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> You can like it to your hearts content. But in the end, as Turk pointed out, it has no more worth than a tapeworms or a dolphins, does it?


How come I'm not allowed to value some animals over others? I value humans over tapeworms because most of my friends are humans, and humans have much better literature. I think the problem is that the original question is very misleading. It assumes that either humans have value and worth _or_ humans are animals. There's no reason why both statements can't be true, and they are. 

As an aside: just because I value the life of a human over that of a dolphin, it doesn't mean that I won't get very upset over the wholesale slaughter of dolphins, an act that is sometimes justified by saying that they are 'just animals'.


> Where, exactly, was this stated or implied? Other than your mind, of course. I can't find it in any of the posts on this thread.


That was in reference to Turk's 'no morality without God', claim. Yeah, it's not the most rational response ever, but I was angry.


> Agreed. cuppajoe_9, you can obviously find meaning, but I think we’re agreed that given atheism as true, it ultimately isn’t rational, correct?


It's more rational than sitting around moping because my life is of no great cosmic signifigance, no?

----------


## tiny explorer

> As an aside: just because I value the life of a human over that of a dolphin, it doesn't mean that I won't get very upset over the wholesale slaughter of dolphins, an act that is sometimes justified by saying that they are 'just animals'.That was in reference to Turk's 'no morality without God', claim. Yeah, it's not the most rational response ever, but I was angry.


Yeah!you're idea here proves how people are people and how they are different.and it's the conscience that makes us unique!! and i think the question is such a broad topic...that's why!

----------


## Nightshade

You know what I dont get? How come we are all operating under the assumption tha 'rabbits ' are incapable of abstract thought, of wondering about life of 'worshipping' as miss T put it. 
Just because we cant see or dot understand their particular logic and reasoning doesnt mean it doesnt exsist.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> You know what I dont get? How come we are all operating under the assumption tha 'rabbits ' are incapable of abstract thought, of wondering about life of 'worshipping' as miss T put it. 
> Just because we cant see or dot understand their particular logic and reasoning doesnt mean it doesnt exsist.


I know! I mean, haven't these people ever read _Watership Down_?

----------


## Nightshade

Are you taking the micheal? because if you are its not nice :Nod:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Taking the michael? I am unfamiliar with the slang of today's youth culture, it seems...

----------


## Nightshade

taking the mick or taking the mickey as in to make fun of-- its really really old its just up here its taking the micheal.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Oh. I actually agree with you, I've just been waiting for an oportunity to spring that _Watership Down_ joke since I thought of it this morning. Shut up, it's a good joke.

----------


## Nightshade

it isnt its smug  :Wink:  :Tongue: 
and is absaloutly opposite to my point because thats unless im mistaken a case of anthropomorphisim basically its a symptom of the nothing is as good as humans so lets have rabitts actting like us. What I mean was rabbits acting like rabbits maybe just as special and capable of abstract thinking as us they just lack the physical capabilities needed to top the food chain.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> and is absaloutly opposite to my point because thats unless im mistaken a case of anthropomorphisim basically its a symptom of the nothing is as good as humans so lets have rabitts actting like us. What I mean was rabbits acting like rabbits maybe just as special and capable of abstract thinking as us they just lack the physical capabilities needed to top the food chain.


That was kind of the joke, actually. Nevermind...

So, _Watership Down_ is a pretty good book, eh?

----------


## Basil

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said:

*SILFLAY HRAKA*

That's pretty funny.

----------


## subterranean

Can a rabbit write something? This sounds like a very good topic and I would like to read its comment!

----------


## Virgil

> Can a rabbit write something? This sounds like a very good topic and I would like to read its comment!


Hey Sub. Maybe we are expecting too much from the rabbits. Perhaps they need training and education. You know with enough effort we can make quite an intellectual sort out of these rabbits. Maybe we can then ask Mr. Rabbit if he's as special as a human.  :FRlol:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Can a rabbit write something? This sounds like a very good topic and I would like to read its comment!


No, they lack opposable thumbs. We'll have to teach them to type, and it'll be hunt-and-peck at that.

----------


## PierreGringoire

I'll prove to you that humans are better and distinct from rabbits. My pet rabit has something to say:_out of cage and on to keyboard_"ssssssssssssfghsfduyffffffffffffffffdfttttttttttt ttttttttttttttjygssssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhh hhhhgvdddddddddd"
That's why he lives in a cage :FRlol:   :Flare:  
I have the solution. Kill all rabbits! k-i-l-l a-l-l r-a-b-b-i-t-s!!
CupaJoe - I'm an anarchist too. I actually tried to run for president. It failed because my running mates didn't help much. Every one of 'em did as they pleased. :Crash:

----------


## PierreGringoire

Are we different from animals?
No, but how about we say that animals have souls too. So there, you atheists, bite around that.

----------


## Orionsbelt

Wow,

In a few short hours... two pages. :Alien:  

Make of it what you will I'm ok being this kind of animal. Why do I need to be any different? I am a part of and a product of this planet and it's ecosystem. I share it with other animals. They are also a part and product of this planet and it's ecosystem. If you have any question to that regard take a walk on the moon but don't forget your space suit.  :Sick:  

I am trying to explore what makes a person such a different kind of animal. In one sense we share many things. This isn't a new thing. Archeologists point to using tools etc. Others use various other arguments. Being able to think by itself isn't the answer. If you have ever had a bear double back on you in the woods you will understand how clever they can be. However I think Turk hit the nail on the head with the notion of Ideals. Although I do not think ideals are dependant on God. The notion of God is itself an ideal. Confucius was a statesman with a highly developed sense of ethics. Ethics After all, ethics comes from ethos, which is Greek for customs. The word morality comes from mores, which is Latin for customs! Niether has as it's source any notion of the levanthian "God". In essence then what I am saying is that it seems what separates man from the other animals is the sense of an Ideal. 

Quoting Carter and Grammer:

"This is my home, this is my only home
This is the only sacred ground that i have ever known
And should i stray in the dark night alone
Rock me goddess in the gentle arms of eden" :Biggrin:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> CupaJoe - I'm an anarchist too. I actually tried to run for president. It failed because my running mates didn't help much. Every one of 'em did as they pleased.


I would tell my anarchist friends to vote for you, but none of them vote as a matter of principle.

----------


## subterranean

> Hey Sub. Maybe we are expecting too much from the rabbits. Perhaps they need training and education. You know with enough effort we can make quite an intellectual sort out of these rabbits. Maybe we can then ask Mr. Rabbit if he's as special as a human.





> No, they lack opposable thumbs. We'll have to teach them to type, and it'll be hunt-and-peck at that.



Yes, what was I thinking! Of course rabbits can't write and we, human, ought to teach them, as cuppajoe's suggestion, to type so they could tell us what they think about us. No, this doesn't mean that we, humans, are more special because we can "teach" our other fellow animals to write, to jump over the ring of fire, to identify shapes, to count, or even to speak! As someone posted, humans are just different.

Also, our many greats grandfathers and grandmothers were cool enough to leave those "I was here" signs, even though they are only in the forms of simple drawings. Among other fellows in the entire animal kingdom, I can't recall any other fellow animals which have those ability to record their history, even until this day. Now I think, we are not just different, but we are really really different.

----------


## Taliesin

> You know what I dont get? How come we are all operating under the assumption tha 'rabbits ' are incapable of abstract thought, of wondering about life of 'worshipping' as miss T put it. 
> Just because we cant see or dot understand their particular logic and reasoning doesnt mean it doesnt exsist.


We didn't say that their logic didn't exist. Just that, probably, they can't think abstractly. Of course, they might have the ability, but aren't showing out that they can for some eeeeeeevil reason, but that is less probable in our opinion.

That does not mean that humans are superior or that other forms of life don't have souls, but humans do. Nope.


Oh, and:



> Seriously, as Dostoevski told: "If there's no God everything is permissible". If you say "Humans are just animals" then what's moral? What's law? What's goodness? Every good thing we believe is completely leans on idealistic stuff and God. And your point of view *is not so different than Nazi point of view*. If you think human is animal then you mean human life has no worth. And as we know from the history this kind of mentality just brought death, famine and vanish to the mankind.


May we invoke the Godwins Law?

----------


## Logos

:FRlol:  Taliesin, well, I think that this _discussion_ is still interesting/relevant/decent enough that the sniping by a few can be overlooked and hopefully people can continue to express their opinions about the subject without regression into thread-killing posts.

----------


## ShoutGrace

> Last edited by Scheherazade : Yesterday at 04:19 PM. Reason: name calling


Tut tut. You've been a bad boy lately, *Virgil*.  :Tongue:  





> I agree with you. We are different from other species just like fish is different from bugs and I don't think that being different means being superior.


Sorry, I couldn’t let this one go. I don’t believe we are different in the same way that fish are different from insects, I believe that we are different in the way that humans are different than both of those creatures. 

Re: *Virgil*’s post on the ‘nobility of man’: While (excluding my theism) I can’t say that mankind is “better” than any other species, I do stand by my earlier statement: We have special attributes, characteristics, and abilities which distinguish us from the rest of the animals on this planet.

We would be worthy of the pedestal if we weren’t such morons.




> My comment was in reply to the comments that humanbeings should be put on a pedestal because they are different in their own way.


Right . . . and the jury is out on whether our completely distinct and special intellect, ingenuity, capacity for complex and abstract thinking, and reasoning skills are beneficial or worthy of the “pedestal.” If we weren’t so smart there never would have been gas chambers (that’s for you *Taliesin* and *Logos*), terrorism, the pulling of nails from fingers with the intention of revealing information, etc.




> Some of the other animals lack and we have do not necessarily mean we are superior.


The ability to love, reason, and create is “superior” than the ability to breathe underwater, or fly. 

How do we think the word “dehumanization” fits into all this?




> No where did I say we were perfect. Man's inhumanity to man is another distinguishing feature that separates from animals. No (other) creature can have the complexity of thought (even wrong thought) to establish the world and society as it exists.


I’m with it all the way, and if somebody tied me down (especially in that situation) I’d defend mankind and it’s characteristics as noble. You know the statement, “The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for?”

I still believe that mankind has the capacity, and has shown glimpses, but all in all we’ve failed miserably.




> How come I'm not allowed to value some animals over others? I value humans over tapeworms because most of my friends are humans, and humans have much better literature. I think the problem is that the original question is very misleading. It assumes that either humans have value and worth or humans are animals. There's no reason why both statements can't be true, and they are.


You can value anything as highly or as lowly as you like, obviously. Concerning the assumption, the original question could be clearer. It depends on the definition of “worth.” 

I value animals highly. Especially after they have been killed, cooked, and had their tender carcasses placed on a plate in front of me.






> As an aside: just because I value the life of a human over that of a dolphin, it doesn't mean that I won't get very upset over the wholesale slaughter of dolphins, an act that is sometimes justified by saying that they are 'just animals'.


I like dolphins as well. They squeak and have sex for fun.

Which is “worse”: 100 dolphins caught and killed, or 5 human children killed?

How about 100 dolphins to 1 human? 

I only find it interesting in light of some of *Scheherezade*'s comments above, and that recent article about the fundraisers set up for both a woman who was a victim of a cougar attack, and the cougar responsible. Naturally, the funds contibuted for the cougar's cause far exceeded those of the woman's.





> That was in reference to Turk's 'no morality without God', claim.


Yes, I know that *cuppajoe_9*. I could see the quote you held above it.  :Wink:  My point is that your statement had absolutely nothing to do with *Turk*’s.




> Yeah, it's not the most rational response ever, but I was angry.


It’s good to hear that. Your posts are usually (from what I can tell - which isn't saying much) the most thought out, reasonable ones around here.




> It's more rational than sitting around moping because my life is of no great cosmic signifigance, no?


I couldn’t agree with that . . . either one is equally valid. Both are “rational” to the same degree.




> I know! I mean, haven't these people ever read Watership Down?


Or “Bunnicula.” We’re quite lucky that rabbits can't read.





> In essence then what I am saying is that it seems what separates man from the other animals is the sense of an Ideal.


How can you be sure that animals have no sense of an “ideal”? If they had an “ideal”, would the utter disparity between their faculties and ours play any part?




> Being able to think by itself isn't the answer. If you have ever had a bear double back on you in the woods you will understand how clever they can be.


I’d like to see a bear launch a satellite. Or solve a calculus problem. Or ponder its own existence. Bears are not very clever at all. What you’ve described is an evolutionary adaptation, a product of years and years of instinct built up, I’d say.




> I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said:
> 
> SILFLAY HRAKA
> 
> That's pretty funny.


Reminds me of the Fuzzies.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I like dolphins as well. They squeak and have sex for fun.
> 
> Which is “worse”: 100 dolphins caught and killed, or 5 human children killed?
> 
> How about 100 dolphins to 1 human?


Meaningless questions anybody? Sorry Shouty, I've seen this trap before and I'm not about to degrade the value of human life by attaching a certain number of dolphins to it.

Killing humans arbitrarily=bad
Killing dolphins arbitrarily=bad

Happy?


> I couldn’t agree with that . . . either one is equally valid. Both are “rational” to the same degree.


No, they are not.

Finding meaning in life means increased quality of life for me, so it is in my best interests. Moping menas decreased quality of life for me, so it is not in my best interests.


> I’d like to see a bear launch a satellite.


I'd like to see _you_ do that too.

----------


## Virgil

As to value of animals, I no where said that animals did not have value. Everyone who has read my posts on dogs and wolves knows how much I love and respect them. But the question was whether humans sare pecial or mere animals, and I think I gave sufficient proof to show that humans are vastly different and special. Next time you sit at a table and have a cooked dinner on a plate and use forks and knives, consider that you didn't have to chase that animal down, bite it in the throat until it dies, tear apart its abdomen with your teeth, and stick your snout into its belly to feed.




> I only find it interesting in light of some of Scheherezade's comments above, and that recent article about the fundraisers set up for both a woman who was a victim of a cougar attack, and the cougar responsible. Naturally, the funds contibuted for the cougar's cause far exceeded those of the woman's.


That is sad, and is I beleive the reflection of a society that has endowed nature with some sort of pseudo religious quality.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> But the question was whether humans sare pecial or mere animals, and I think I gave sufficient proof to show that humans are vastly different and special.


And, as I've said, the question is fundamnetally flawed. There is no reason why human beings can't be special _and_ animals.

----------


## Turk

> Sorry if it seem like I'm picking on you, Turk, but you're making me angry.


Before everything i would like to explain something about this. I really don't care if "you picking on" me. And do you really think i mind to make an 18 years old "anarchist" child who's trying to prove himself with his "deep" philosophical thoughts? I don't think. Go, keep watching "Fight Club".

And at the end i would like to say everything i told is leans on historical stuff. If you don't know about history, sorry but it's not my mistake. Read a little about religion and historical/philosophical background of Nazizm and USSR. If it's too hard for you then at least look at the world's situation. Thousands of people dying because of starvation in Africa, Iraq, Latin America, but i don't think u care about them since they are just animals according to you. I couldn't completely understand why western people this much selfish and unconcerned about people who's dying because of imperialism of western states but now i understood it, since i realized you think human is something like dog or pig, being pig is result of thinking human is something close to pig i guess. And btw, it wasn't me the one who say "If there's no God everything is permissible". That was Dostoevski's saying. Since you all seem much wiser than Dostoevski i think i shouldn't argue about it anymore.

As Mawlana Jalal-Ad Din Rumi said; "no matter how much you know, they will understand from what you say as much as they know".

----------


## ShoutGrace

> I'd like to see you do that too.


Should I have said, Id like to see (warning  arbitrary number upcoming) 1,000 bears put their minds together and design an object, put it into space, where it will then collect data and transmit it back to earth, so that the bears can then interpret it?

Mankind was obviously implied.




> Sorry Shouty, I've seen this trap before and I'm not about to degrade the value of human life by attaching a certain number of dolphins to it.


I thought that humans and animals were the same?




> Humans are animals, friend. There is *nothing* to separate us.


How about not degrading dolphin lives by attaching a number of humans to it?

Youve said:




> How come I'm not allowed to value some animals over others? I value humans over tapeworms because most of my friends are humans, and humans have much better literature.


The literal meaning of this sentence is that the worth of animals and humans in your eyes is dependent on what they can do for you . . . is there anything else to qualify it?




> Finding meaning in life means increased quality of life for me, so it is in my best interests. Moping menas decreased quality of life for me, so it is not in my best interests.


This is what it comes down to? Finding some kind of temporary meaning to increase your quality of life? Similar to doing what it takes to wrap yourself up in a nice warm blanket, it seems to me. I wouldnt deride or praise that practise any more than what youve called moping, nor would I call it any more rational.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

Neither Hitler nor Stalin nor those responsible for the starvation in Africa, Iraq and Latin America believe anything I have said. Hitler and Stalin thought they were gods, not people. The imperialists who refuse to rectify the situation that makes third-world economic advancement impossible, including the leaders of my country, I am very ashamed to say, are generally Christian, and therefore do not accept my views. Dostoevski was a genius, but on that point he was mistaken because neither I, nor any other atheist I have ever met or read, think that 'everything is permissible'. I never claimed to be wise, but I know enough to make an argument without resortinting to insults.

I happen to think that all human beings are of equal worth, and that the fact that we happen to share a biological kingdom with apes and insects does absolutely nothing to diminish that fact.

----------


## Turk

Look bro, today's world controlled by a materialist ideology in almost every place of the world. That's why i mentioned about starvation of Africa. 

And about Stalin and Hitler, you already know what Hitler have done, and Stalin; he killed millions of people by intentional famines. That's why i mentioned'em. And all in all they all feed by Materialist-Darwinist thoughts. Everything i told is related to each other, even sometimes i can't tell clearly what i want to tell actually. You'r too young, i understand your youth excitement but try to be a lil controlled and still, remember you'r 18, maybe your thoughts will change in future, so be a lil more self-possesed and read a lot if you want to develop. As Balzac said "to be master of knowledge you have to be slave of working", keep it in your mind. That's all...

----------


## Turk

And btw, i'm a Muslim so i believe Christianity has changed but even i don't think leaders of west are true Christians.

----------


## Logos

*sigh* Don't base your argument on another poster's age or your idea of what their IQ is etc etc. Posts will be edited/deleted if there are any more sophomoric/flame-ish comments.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Should I have said, “I’d like to see (warning – arbitrary number upcoming) 1,000 bears put their minds together and design an object, put it into space, where it will then collect data and transmit it back to earth, so that the bears can then interpret it”?
> 
> “Mankind” was obviously implied.


Just jokes, man, just jokes.


> I thought that humans and animals were the same?


Humans are different from _other_ animals, but we are animals. There's no contradiction here.


> The literal meaning of this sentence is that the worth of animals and humans in your eyes is dependent on what they can do for you . . . is there anything else to qualify it?


Well one could say that humans are better because we've achieved civilization and wars and New York and so on, but that's hardly an objective critera. We're inventing those criteria because it's what we're good at.


> This is what it comes down to? Finding some kind of temporary meaning to increase your quality of life?


A bit harsh, but that's basically it, yeah. All increases to quality of life are temporary, and all meanings of life come from yourself. You can either find one or become apathetic, and apathy does no good to anybody.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Look bro, today's world controlled by a materialist ideology in almost every place of the world. That's why i mentioned about starvation of Africa.


By 'materialism' do you mean 'consumerism' or the doctorine that nothing exists except matter and motion? I am steadfastly opposed to the first, and the second is hardly in control of the world.

----------


## Turk

> *sigh* Don't base your argument on another poster's age or your idea of what their IQ is etc etc. Posts will be edited/deleted if there are any more sophomoric/flame-ish comments.


It was just a friendly advice, since i know i was wrong about many things when i was 18.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> It was just a friendly advice, since i know i was wrong about many things when i was 18.


Dismissing my entire argument because I was born in 1987 is friendly?

----------


## Scheherazade

This is a very interesting discussion. Let's not get distracted with personal comments (which you can exchange via PM if you choose to do so).

----------


## Nightshade

> (excluding my theism)


am having what before PC would be called a 'blond' moment can you explain what that means I was going to PM you but thats too much bother  :Tongue: 







> The ability to love, reason, and create is superior than the ability to breathe underwater, or fly.


why?



> Im with it all the way, and if somebody tied me down (especially in that situation) Id defend mankind and its characteristics as noble. You know the statement, The world is a fine place, and worth fighting for?


well Ill admit that Ill also admit that as a muslim my beliefs point me in he dirrection of humans while not being supirior are the master race, but then agan I also belive that all animals have sould and are capable and do in fat worship God.




> Or ponder its own existence.


but would you realise it was doing it if you saw it and how do you know then if they dont?






> *sigh* Don't base your argument on another poster's age or your idea of what their IQ is etc etc. Posts will be edited/deleted if there are any more sophomoric/flame-ish comments.


yay!




> Dismissing my entire argument because I was born in 1987 is friendly?


wow really your the same age as me? How theheck do you know so much?
This is very demoralising news  :Frown:  well its not as bad as Robin I guess.

----------


## Virgil

> All creatures are different and special in their own ways. Fish can stay under the water and swim, birds fly, most 'animals' can navigate through their very complicated _and_ developed senses, some can see in the dark; they hear and smell 'better' than us. They are, we are, all different and special in our own way. Some of the other animals lack and we have do not necessarily mean we are superior.


This has come up a couple of times. So,











Need I say more. :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:

----------


## hitchhiker

I posted the whole thing it started with me. And I must have not been clear with the question but here is the real thing. If you believe in a higher being then you must also believe that each individual here is nothing more then a rabbit or even an ant when compared to his inteligence and his just over whelming greatness. So there for no matter what all we have created individually we are little more then nothing compared to him (or she or it or what ever it may be budda, god, satan, ahlai, what ever it doesn't really matter) we are but one ant in his ant farm. And if you look at it from that prespective see this too. When as a child we look at ant farms or ant hills we see their tunnels and amazing ability to lift such heavy things, well heavy to them, so look at god as the child and us as the ants but on a larger plain instead of tunnels we have roads and what not. So compared to him we are ants and if we are ants does this higher being have any respect for us or with his great knowledge does he just look down and luagh. There is the theory or question or just whatever you want to call it. It is NOT ASKING IF WE ARE JUST SIMPLE ANIMALS!!!!!!!

----------


## Virgil

> I posted the whole thing it started with me. And I must have not been clear with the question but here is the real thing. If you believe in a higher being then you must also believe that each individual here is nothing more then a rabbit or even an ant when compared to his inteligence and his just over whelming greatness. So there for no matter what all we have created individually we are little more then nothing compared to him (or she or it or what ever it may be budda, god, satan, ahlai, what ever it doesn't really matter) we are but one ant in his ant farm. And if you look at it from that prespective see this too. When as a child we look at ant farms or ant hills we see their tunnels and amazing ability to lift such heavy things, well heavy to them, so look at god as the child and us as the ants but on a larger plain instead of tunnels we have roads and what not. So compared to him we are ants and if we are ants does this higher being have any respect for us or with his great knowledge does he just look down and luagh. There is the theory or question or just whatever you want to call it. It is NOT ASKING IF WE ARE JUST SIMPLE ANIMALS!!!!!!!


All that for nothing? What? Do you realize how you got people's passions up?  :Flare:

----------


## Orionsbelt

> How can you be sure that animals have no sense of an ideal? If they had an ideal, would the utter disparity between their faculties and ours play any part?
> 
> 
> 
> Id like to see a bear launch a satellite. Or solve a calculus problem. Or ponder its own existence. Bears are not very clever at all. What youve described is an evolutionary adaptation, a product of years and years of instinct built up, Id say.



Well If you start with the notion that men lived in caves and bears lived in caves. Only one has imagined an improvement (idealized) and moved into new digs. So I think it is both. 

I had a dog once that was running away from me. He ran to the edge of the house turned the corner and then peaked back around to watch what I was doing. I thought I would be clever and circle the house in the other direction. When I got to the corner and peaked around the dog was gone. When I turned around in the direction that I had come the dog was peaking at me. So there is some degree of cognition at work. This isn't instinct in my opinion. This is an evaluation and acting on it.

However, as has been pointed out so many times already bears and other animals completely lack ambition. :Wink:  There is no visible sign of improvement. The same can be said of the great apes who are behavioraly very similar to us. So lets say another animal could imagine some improvement in comfort. It would be sensible to act on it. So I can only conclude that the ability to imagine some new state isn't present.  :Bawling:  

However, so now the question becomes how special is this feature? Does it represent a pinnicle. If it does how so? And then further so what?  :Brow:  

Is the whole rank issue is somewhat petty given the fact that in a billion stars and planets within sight we are the only known spot to have developed any kind of animal? So on the grand scale of amazement, the differance may be somewhat lost on outsiders. Having introduced yourself as the representative peak of the planet, what would you say to the delegation from Outland?

----------


## miss tenderness

> As Mawlana Jalal-Ad Din Rumi said; "no matter how much you know, they will understand from what you say as much as they know".


Interesting,wise saying,though not applicable in all situation. May I be enlightene more about Jalal Adin Rumi,Turk?I mean his name is not weird but I cant figure out who exactly is he ?he won my interest. I'll be grateful if u send me a brief information concerning him or direct me to a site,thanks.




> Dismissing my entire argument because I was born in 1987 is friendly?


Though all of your argument does not make sense to me,Cupp,still your argument should not be dismissed just because of your age. I mean who knows,maybe someone who's younger beats with the knowledge he has, many people older than him. We should judge according to the argument and proofs stated ,not someone's age.

----------


## Virgil

> Well If you start with the notion that men lived in caves and bears lived in caves. Only one has imagined an improvement (idealized) and moved into new digs. So I think it is both. 
> 
> I had a dog once that was running away from me. He ran to the edge of the house turned the corner and then peaked back around to watch what I was doing. I thought I would be clever and circle the house in the other direction. When I got to the corner and peaked around the dog was gone. When I turned around in the direction that I had come the dog was peaking at me. So there is some degree of cognition at work. This isn't instinct in my opinion. This is an evaluation and acting on it.
> 
> However, as has been pointed out so many times already bears and other animals completely lack ambition. There is no visible sign of improvement. The same can be said of the great apes who are behavioraly very similar to us. So lets say another animal could imagine some improvement in comfort. It would be sensible to act on it. So I can only conclude that the ability to imagine some new state isn't present.  
> 
> However, so now the question becomes how special is this feature? Does it represent a pinnicle. If it does how so? And then further so what?


You provided a nice comparison. Yes, I've noticed cognition in my dogs too. But they have no ability to build on it. In 13 million years, the wolf and dog haven't orgainzed their lives in any different way. 

Side note: As I type this my dog Brandi is laying comfortably on my couch in my living room in my heated home. Perhaps they are not so dumb after all. :Wink:   :Biggrin:

----------


## Taliesin

So, are you claiming that human race is of greater worth than animals because they have got all these gadgets that make life easier, or have we misunderstood you?

Logically thinking, then one should think the more technologically developed a society or culture is, the better it is, no? So French should be worth more than the Sami, the English worth more than the Apachi, the Greeks worth more than the Ainu?
We really don't think so. Right, the Sami didn't invent a lot of technological gadgets (although, their folklore is a marvel) but does it make them inferior? 
They just don't need them. What's wrong with that?

Similarly, the animals don't need to launch a rocket to outer space or solve calculus problems. They can get by without these things and they do get by. Are they worse than us because they don't have the need? 

Besides, our intellect is also causing the danger of making humankind a short-lived species. There is a good chance that humankind will go extinct much sooner than other strong species normallly do. Live fast, die young, leave a... um.... not-so-good-looking remains?

----------


## Logos

> Side note: As I type this my dog Brandi is laying comfortably on my couch in my living room in my heated home. Perhaps they are not so dumb after all.


Domesticated beasts are at our mercy and don't have much choice when they are held captive by us, you'd be surprised how many animals will choose to run away from their 'masters' if given that ultimate freedom  :Biggrin:

----------


## Nightshade

> So compared to him we are ants and if we are ants does this higher being have any respect for us or with his great knowledge does he just look down and luagh. There is the theory or question or just whatever you want to call it. It is NOT ASKING IF WE ARE JUST SIMPLE ANIMALS!!!!!!!


And thats an interesting point once its out there/here for reinterpritation does it actually matter what the authours intention was?

----------


## Virgil

> So, are you claiming that human race is of greater worth than animals because they have got all these gadgets that make life easier, or have we misunderstood you?


I never mentioned worth in any of my posts. My single point in all of this is that humans are not animals but a species apart based on very simple observations. No animal comes close in doing what humans do.

----------


## Virgil

> Domesticated beasts are at our mercy and don't have much choice when they are held captive by us, you'd be surprised how many animals will choose to run away from their 'masters' if given that ultimate freedom


Not my Brandi. She knows a good thing when she sees it.  :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:

----------


## Turk

> Dismissing my entire argument because I was born in 1987 is friendly?


I am not dismissing your arguments just because your age, i dismiss your arguments becasue i don't think they are sensible to me. Without knowing essence and arguments of true religion, without knowing relation between historical events and philosophy at the background of historical events you can still make comments, and those comments can be logical, becasue everyone has a brain and everyone can think, but thinking without knowledge is like swimming in a fish pool. Every fish thinks he's in a ocean without knowing what's ocean. And btw as i can see yet now nobody made any reasonable comments about moral, good and evil etc. All i can see is just demagogic comments.

At the end i would like to say i made comment about your age but it's not becasue something about you, it's because me, personally i don't like to argue with so young or very old people because of some reasons. Although i didn't say you shouldn't make comments, i just said you should be a little calm and controlled.

----------


## Turk

> Interesting,wise saying,though not applicable in all situation. May I be enlightene more about Jalal Adin Rumi,Turk?I mean his name is not weird but I can’t figure out who exactly is he ?he won my interest. I'll be grateful if u send me a brief information concerning him or direct me to a site,thanks.


Mawlana Jalal-Ad Din Rumi is a great Sufi philosopher. His book Mesnevi is the greatest book i've ever read and he's the wisest poet/philosopher, almost every sentence of his books is full of wisery. I'll add a link for you, about his works and biography;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalal_ad-Din_Muhammad_Rumi

You can find links to his works at the bottom of that article, but if you going to read him i advice you to be careful and thoughtful. Because if you don't read careful it may just seem like some fables and eastern stories to you.

http://www.mevlana.ws/ Here's one more...

----------


## Virgil

> Mawlana Jalal-Ad Din Rumi is a great Sufi philosopher. His book Mesnevi is the greatest book i've ever read and he's the wisest poet/philosopher, almost every sentence of his books is full of wisery. I'll add a link for you, about his works and biography;
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalal_ad-Din_Muhammad_Rumi
> 
> You can find links to his works at the bottom of that article, but if you going to read him i advice you to be careful and thoughtful. Because if you don't read careful it may just seem like some fables and eastern stories to you.
> 
> http://www.mevlana.ws/ Here's one more...


Thanks Turk. I found the wikipedia site very interesting.

----------


## Turk

You'r welcome.

----------


## miss tenderness

I guessesd that Jalal Aldeen was a Sufi leader ,that's why I asked you:one to read about him more and second to make sure about my guessing. I do not agree with the sufi ways . I've nt read what's in the links but I promise I'll do(carefully as u recommended),and feed you back ,Turk.,thanks alot.

----------


## miss tenderness

> If you believe in a higher being then you must also believe that each individual here is nothing more then a rabbit or even an ant when compared to his inteligence and his just over whelming greatness. So there for no matter what all we have created individually we are little more then nothing compared to him (or she or it or what ever it may be budda, god, satan, ahlai, what ever it doesn't really matter) we are but one ant in his ant farm.


Wait,wait..
What's up boy!we're but mere animals compared to God!!!I'm an animal compared to God. Your words failed you here. If you want to say that"hey people,God is the greatest and the most Omnipotent and we're not but mere one kind of His grand creations" then I totally join you. But saying that we are animals compared to Him is such a ..dunno what to say.(plz feed me back about this point lest I misunderstood you,thanks). For me, Yes I believe in my God(Allah ,the most Gracious the most Merciful) . I believe He creates all what my eyes meet. I fear Him and obey His orders. I sense His greatness wherever I go,but I'm not an ANIMAL. In fact, Allah,swt, tells us in the Holy Quran that you son of Adam are amongst my vast creation but I've honor you with specialities that are not given to any of my creation. Allah,swt,ennobles me as a human,thus , He sends the messengers and sends down the messages to people(note that they are not for animals or plants but for you son of Adam(humans)because you are given abilities that are not given to any of His other creation. I'm not a rabbit compared to God. I'm one of God's great creation and I'm so proud that he honored me and made me human and asked me to glorify Him .
hope my point was clear...

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I am not dismissing your arguments just because your age, i dismiss your arguments becasue i don't think they are sensible to me. Without knowing essence and arguments of true religion, without knowing relation between historical events and philosophy at the background of historical events you can still make comments, and those comments can be logical, becasue everyone has a brain and everyone can think, but thinking without knowledge is like swimming in a fish pool.


What makes you think I'm uneducated in those fields? I was raised Catholic and am a student of history in college, I think I know at least a few things.




> At the end i would like to say i made comment about your age but it's not becasue something about you, it's because me, personally i don't like to argue with so young or very old people because of some reasons. Although i didn't say you shouldn't make comments, i just said you should be a little calm and controlled.


If you don't want to argue with me then don't. I think I'm being fairly calm, considering that in the course of this conversation I've been called a jackass, a nazi, an amoral hypocrite, uneducated and too young to possibly have a valid argument. To be perfectly frank, I could do without that kind of 'argument'.

----------


## Virgil

> Wait,wait..
> What's up boy!we're but mere animals compared to God!!!I'm an animal compared to God. Your words failed you here. If you want to say that"hey people,God is the greatest and the most Omnipotent and we're not but mere one kind of His grand creations" then I totally join you. But saying that we are animals compared to Him is such a ..dunno what to say.(plz feed me back about this point lest I misunderstood you,thanks). For me, Yes I believe in my God(Allah ,the most Gracious the most Merciful) . I believe He creates all what my eyes meet. I fear Him and obey His orders. I sense His greatness wherever I go,but I'm not an ANIMAL. In fact, Allah,swt, tells us in the Holy Quran that you son of Adam are amongst my vast creation but I've honor you with specialities that are not given to any of my creation. Allah,swt,ennobles me as a human,thus , He sends the messengers and sends down the messages to people(note that they are not for animals or plants but for you son of Adam(humans)because you are given abilities that are not given to any of His other creation. I'm not a rabbit compared to God. I'm one of God's great creation and I'm so proud that he honored me and made me human and asked me to glorify Him .
> hope my point was clear...


I've never heard what hitchiker is putting forth. Actually religious thought usually has a hiearchy where God is on top, perhaps angels next, man follows, and then animals below. Religious thought (at least Christianity which is the only one I'm qualified to speak about) typically separates man and anmals, and man is considered to be in God's image.

----------


## Nightshade

You know I think I get what hes saying -- hope this is the right track, maybe what you needed was a differant animal as an analogy like _sheep_ for example. 
Do you mean that a rabbit -should a human take intrest has no power at all over its life we get to eat it, starve it feed it, lock it up in a dirty little cage, or lavish thousands of pounds on really expensive pet accessories.
So if Im on the right track basically the question is we have no more power than the rabbit, or sheep and are simply led pushed/ forced into our lives from birth till death and beyond.

I dont belive that. I belive that which sets us apart from animals and Angels is our ability to choose. All Gods creations on our earth ( including inanimate objects) apart from humans worship God in their very exsitance but not us as we get to choose it which is why we are the 'inheritors' of earth which is basically one big long series of tiny tests that add up.

And I bet this makes absaloutly no sense to anyone but me...miss T maybe you can explain it better what Im trying to get into is the 'zeinat hayat el dunyah' and 'the sukhar lukm' ayyahs

EDIT: does this make more sense??? http://www.online-literature.com/for...t=19619&page=8
if not I pretty much give up.. you need to live inside my head to understand me.
 :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:

----------


## ShoutGrace

> Last edited : 10-19-2006 at 04:44 PM. Reason: Flaming


Virgil, I can't help it, you make me laugh.  :Biggrin:   :Thumbs Up: 




> Just jokes, man, just jokes.


 :FRlol:  Ah, it seems clear now. Thanks for explaining.




> Well one could say that humans are better because we've achieved civilization and wars and New York and so on, but that's hardly an objective critera. We're inventing those criteria because it's what we're good at.


Im not saying that humans are better because of the achievements that theyve produced (although I can imagine that I havent been clear thus far), Im saying that mankind is of a different class than the rest of creation because of their special attributes, characteristics, and abilities (which of course enable them to achieve). 

The capacity to achieve what we have is what stands human kind apart. Why do I choose this criteria? From examining the characteristics of life on this planet, the ones that humans possess are distinct from all the rest.

Your last sentence is interesting from the perspective that *Kurtz* tried to put forth, i.e. the human superiority complex.




> You can either find one or become apathetic, and apathy does no good to anybody.


Thats something I can appreciate.




> am having what before PC would be called a 'blond' moment can you explain what that means I was going to PM you but thats too much bother.


It is still called a blond moment, *Nightshade*. Let come what may.

So far I think Ive managed to argue without letting theism or atheism play a part. 

As a theist I am obligated to believe that people have souls and that they are divinely originated. They are morally capable agents created in Gods very image for a reason. That makes them superior to tapeworms, chimpanzees, and e-coli. 

I think it has been acknowledged, however, that even given atheism, human beings are special regarding their placement in the animal kingdom. The original question was, by the way, Are human beings special or are we nothing more than mere rabbits. Doesnt distinguish between animals, folks.




> why?


I find the ability to reason superior to the ability to breathe underwater because it comes from the mind  breathing underwater is nothing more than a physical attribute (that humans have found a way to master, by the way, as shown above). The fact that the fishs main distinction is the ownership of gills is less impressive than the human ownership of reason (and this is an entirely personal opinion).




> well Ill admit that Ill also admit that as a muslim my beliefs point me in he dirrection of humans while not being supirior are the master race,


Im confused here, please help explicate for me. How can humans be the master race and yet not be superior? Maybe Im misunderstanding the definitions.




> Do you mean that a rabbit -should a human take intrest has no power at all over its life we get to eat it, starve it feed it, lock it up in a dirty little cage, or lavish thousands of pounds on really expensive pet accessories.


This is quirky, given the human-rabbit comparison, because humans do all these things to other humans.




> , but then agan I also belive that all animals have sould and are capable and do in fat worship God.


This is the question that arises out of my beliefs above, that humans are created in Gods image, and have souls. Why then it seems clear that they are superior to animals (although this implies that animals do not have souls). This is a spiritual issue that I havent the time or inclination to explore, though it might be worthwhile. I just havent had occasion to go about deciding for myself if animals have souls. Though Virgil said this:




> Actually religious thought usually has a hiearchy where God is on top, perhaps angels next, man follows, and then animals below. Religious thought (at least Christianity which is the only one I'm qualified to speak about) typically separates man and anmals, and man is considered to be in God's image.


Thats fine for me, I suppose.




> All that for nothing? What? Do you realize how you got people's passions up?


I guess weve made this thread what we want it to be, regardless of the opening posters intent. That, however, is the risk when participating in a thread whose purpose isnt clearly communicated, I guess. I like the turn this thread has taken anyway.




> And thats an interesting point once its out there/here for reinterpritation does it actually matter what the authours intention was?


Not to me it doesnt.




> i dismiss your arguments becasue i don't think they are sensible to me.


*cuppajoe_9*'s posts are of a much higher quality than some of the others on this forum (mine probably included). Over time you come to find that you appreciate a person actually reading your posts and taking the time to respond thoughtfully to them.




> I think I'm being fairly calm, considering that in the course of this conversation I've been called a jackass, a nazi, an amoral hypocrite, uneducated and too young to possibly have a valid argument.


I wasn't the perpetrator of any of those, was I?  :Wink:   :Tongue:  




> However, so now the question becomes how special is this feature? And then further so what?


I dont think these questions really matter (given atheism). If we are purely animals, different in degree but not ultimately in kind from every other living thing, then what does the speciality of these features matter? We can observe them and manipulate them. 

So what? I cant see that there is any So what. Read some good books that are available to you because of it (and do so in a clean, well lighted place). Be observant of it and contemplate how we are the way we are. 

Given theism, then I think it provides a grounds for observing a reflection of the divine. 




> Having introduced yourself as the representative peak of the planet, what would you say to the delegation from Outland?


Id ask how long Id been dreaming, and if it was alright if I woke up.  :Wink:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I’m saying that mankind is of a different class than the rest of creation because of their special attributes, characteristics, and abilities (which of course enable them to achieve).
> 
> The capacity to achieve what we have is what stands human kind apart. Why do I choose this criteria? From examining the characteristics of life on this planet, the ones that humans possess are distinct from all the rest.


There's no denying that we're unique, I agree, and that is something to be proud of, but I'm still irritated by said 'human superiority complex'. I think we're basically in agreement, just coming at it from different angles.


> am having what before PC would be called a 'blond' moment can you explain what that means I was going to PM you but thats too much bother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by ShoutGrace
> 
> It is still called a blond moment, Nightshade. Let come what may.


Interesting that the blonde joke was, I believe, originally developed as a less offensive alternative to the racist joke, probably on the grounds that nobody could reasonably believe that blondes are actually less intelligent than anybody else. In conclusion: political correctness is ridiculous.


> This is quirky, given the human-rabbit comparison, because humans do all these things to other humans.


Oh the symbolism!


> *cuppajoe_9's* posts are of a much higher quality than some of the others on this forum (mine probably included). Over time you come to find that you appreciate a person actually reading your posts and taking the time to respond thoughtfully to them.


You make me blush.

----------


## Pensive

> I wonder if man is something special in this world or are we just merely as special as rabbits or any other animal for that. What I am saying, is man special in the way are we able to truely concieve the meaning of life or are we just ignorant for thinking that we can. The rabbit I am talking about is the simpale creature that goes through life wanting nothing more then to reporduce and just go through life eating and having sex eating and having sex. *No questions about life no thoughts or evening careing to think about itor better yet they know that they have no ablilty to understand the conseption of life* so why insult who ever started it by thinking they can. So what are we, are we special by haveing the ability to undestand life or are we stupid for even thinking we can are we jsut as important as rabbits.


I woke up early in the morning. I go to school. I talk with friends. I come home and eat meal. Then, I start browsing this forum. After this, I do some other activities like having discussion with my grandfather or doing homeworks and stuff. That's my life. That's how I am spending it. That's my concept of life. I am special. My friend's cat is special. My friend is special as well. The monkey I saw in the zoo last year was oh-so-special. So, why not take it that everyone is special? Different in a way or other so special. Everyone knows the "concept of life", that's another thing that their judgement can be different from us. If Rabbits haven't discovered nuclear power or stuff, it doesn't make them less special, or it doesn't prove that "they haven't got the concept of life."

----------


## Taliesin

As far We can see, there have been these basic thoughts concerning the opinion that human beings are not animals:

1) religious. God made men in his image and so they are not animals. Can't argue that. Faith is a thing that stands away from logic.

2) The fact that we're special and unique. Yes, we are. We see a problem of defining here. 



> American Heritage Dictionary states that an animal is 'A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.'. If we agree on this definition, then, no doubt, we are animals.
> 
> However, the same dictionary also adds that an animal can be 'An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.' So it seems like we are not the only ones who are struggling to decide whether we are animals or not.

----------


## Turk

> What makes you think I'm uneducated in those fields? I was raised Catholic and am a student of history in college, I think I know at least a few things.
> 
> If you don't want to argue with me then don't. I think I'm being fairly calm, considering that in the course of this conversation I've been called a jackass, a nazi, an amoral hypocrite, uneducated and too young to possibly have a valid argument. To be perfectly frank, I could do without that kind of 'argument'.


Your answers make me think you doesn't have enough knowledge about religion and history. And raising as Catholic doesn't mean understanding religion even Catholicism, everyone borns in a society and everyone raised in a culture, but raising in a Catholic or Muslim or Buddhist society doesn't mean you know/understand essence of those religions. And i don't have knowledge about specialities of your history class and it's level since everyone get education almost everyone has history classes in their education life and yeah i didn't say you don't know anything, i'm sure you know a few things i just said you don't know enough.

"If you don't want to argue with me then don't" : reason is not your personality as i explained, i don't like to argue with very young or very old people because of some other reasons. And as i know i didn't call you Nazi, uneducated or jackass, i just told you'r too young and don't know enough.




> cuppajoe_9's posts are of a much higher quality than some of the others on this forum (mine probably included). Over time you come to find that you appreciate a person actually reading your posts and taking the time to respond thoughtfully to them.


I don't like to repeat my words, but as i told; i didn'T say he has no thoughts, as everyone he has thoughts too and i told it. But without enough knowledge about a specific subject i think it's almost impossible to reach correct thoughts.

From this point i'll try to sa some things i think;

Virgil; i'm not sure about Christianity, because i didn't research about this question in Christianity, but in İslam human is supreme than angels, because according to İslam God give us ability to choose, free will. But angels doesn't have free will that's why he ordered angels to prostrate in front of human and show him respect you know the last part i think. Satan rejected this because of his arrogance (though some İslamic scholars have different thoughts about Satan's manner, according to them Satan was so faithful and that's why didn't want to pray prostrate to man, and that was a "blind" faith, that make him forget obeying orders of God is true faith. An interesting claim. Although this kind of faith also includes arrogance, i think those scholars misses this weak part of their argument). 

Back to main subject, human is supreme than animal not because we did nuclear plant. This point of view just fits to materialist-scientisist point of view of western people. So technology makes us more "supreme" than others? Bravo. While Chinese people much "civilized" than Europeans, Brittania invaded their lands and massacred thousands of Chinese. Well now can we say English was supreme than Chinese just because they had stronger ships and cannons? Our humanity and values make us higher being than an animal. Not our technology. 

We can try to understand things in universe, we can understand each other's sorrow, happiness, peace etc. We can love, animals can't. For God's sake, i would like to ask people who claim we are animals; didn't you ever fell in love with someone without thinking sex? 

Well at the last word i would like to clarify one more thing.

Now we think similar in one point. People who uses technology to kill others nothing but bunch of wild wolves. People who never loved a woman or guy without thinking sex are just bunch of lustful pigs. People who never thinks about others but live for eating, fun and enjoy are just bunch of monkeys, dogs and sheeps. I agree with you, some people can be animal. But that doesn't mean ideal man.

----------


## ShoutGrace

> As far We can see, there have been these basic thoughts concerning the opinion that human beings are not animals:
> 
> 1) religious. God made men in his image and so they are not animals. Can't argue that. Faith is a thing that stands away from logic.


This aspect has just come into play. The majority of the thread was conducted without cognizance of theistic issues, and it worked great that way, as far as I can tell. Besides which, your summation of the "religious" side of it is lacking much, I'm afraid.




> 2) The fact that we're special and unique. Yes, we are. We see a problem of defining here.


We have several facts. One is the opening question:

Are humans special or are we nothing more the mere rabbits?

We have the definition of 'special':
_
- Distinguished by some unusual quality.

- Of a distinct or particular kind or character.
- Being a particular one; particular, individual, or certain._

The answer seems clear to me, and I think we've all agreed on the answer. Is there anything wrong with the following, besides my grammar?




> Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
> 
> It doesn't matter how many great works of literature or amazing sculptures or breathtaking temples we build, we will still be multicellular organisms of the kingdom Animalia.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we are, and of course we are infinitely different than the rest of the organisms represented there.


Disregarding theistic issues, can't we agree that humans are special in comparison to the rest of life on this planet?




> I think we're basically in agreement, just coming at it from different angles.


Word.





> You make me blush.


We'll see how long that lasts.  :Wink: 




> I woke up early in the morning. I go to school. I talk with friends. I come home and eat meal. Then, I start browsing this forum. After this, I do some other activities like having discussion with my grandfather or doing homeworks and stuff. That's my life. That's how I am spending it. That's my concept of life. I am special. My friend's cat is special. My friend is special as well. The monkey I saw in the zoo last year was oh-so-special. So, why not take it that everyone is special? Different in a way or other so special. Everyone knows the "concept of life", that's another thing that their judgement can be different from us. If Rabbits haven't discovered nuclear power or stuff, it doesn't make them less special, or it doesn't prove that "they haven't got the concept of life."


Hi Pensive!  :Banana: 

What definition of 'special' are you using?

p.s. I agree, you're special.  :Biggrin:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Your answers make me think you doesn't have enough knowledge about religion and history. And raising as Catholic doesn't mean understanding religion even Catholicism, everyone borns in a society and everyone raised in a culture, but raising in a Catholic or Muslim or Buddhist society doesn't mean you know/understand essence of those religions.


Well then you're just going to have to take my word for it aren't you? I don't claim any experise, but I understand religion and have a reasonable outline of history. I don't actually recall stating anything whatsoever about history onn this thread, so I have no idea where you're pulling this from. I have some essays about the English Civil War you can read if you don't believe me.


> And as i know i didn't call you Nazi, uneducated or jackass, i just told you'r *too young and don't know enough.*





> ...And your point of view is not so different than Nazi point of view...


The jackass line was Virgil's. Anyway...


> Back to main subject, human is supreme than animal not because we did nuclear plant. This point of view just fits to materialist-scientisist point of view of western people.


Look brah, materialism (in the sense that I assume you are using it) is not the dominant philosophy in the western world. Fully half of the materialists in my city, for example, moved to Edmonton last year. She's a nice girl. Anyway, you are putting words into my mouth (and the mouthes of my fellow materialists). I never said that humans are in any way "supreme", technology or no. In fact, I have been vigorously opposing this viewpoint for the entire thread, as I remember it.


> We can try to understand things in universe, we can understand each other's sorrow, happiness, peace etc. We can love, animals can't.


That last point is debatable (and it's not a debate I'm particularly interested in having, if nobody minds), but as I said, we're certainly unique.


> For God's sake, i would like to ask people who claim we are animals; didn't you ever fell in love with someone without thinking sex?


Can't say I ever fallen in love with someone without that thought at least crossing my mind.


> Now we think similar in one point. People who uses technology to kill others nothing but bunch of wild wolves. People who never loved a woman or guy without thinking sex are just bunch of lustful pigs.


Well I (and, I imagine, Virgil) take issue with the wolf imagery. Wolves do not, despite their reputation, go around killing things for no reason. They hunt for food, and when they have enough food they stop hunting. This is not because of any compassion or understanding of the balance of nature, or any such garbage, it's simply because hunting when you already have food is a waste of time and time is a very valuable comodity in the arcitic. As a pacifist, however, I agree with the statement.

I cannot agree with your second sentence whatsoever. There is nothing wrong with sex.


> agree with you, some people can be animal. But that doesn't mean ideal man.


That's not at all what I have been saying, and I think you know it.


> Disregarding theistic issues, can't we agree that humans are “special” in comparison to the rest of life on this planet?


Sure can (except for the part about 'infinitely').

----------


## Turk

> Well then you're just going to have to take my word for it aren't you? I don't claim any experise, but I understand religion and have a reasonable outline of history. I don't actually recall stating anything whatsoever about history onn this thread, so I have no idea where you're pulling this from. I have some essays about the English Civil War you can read if you don't believe me.


Well, then we understand it differen from each other. I was the first one who mentioned about history in this thread i guess. It's because of subject, this question is not just a simple question according to me. To understand something important about man we have to look history, philosophy and religion. And i believe your word, why wouldn't i?

I still say i just called you too young and that's truth i think. Having a common thought-similarity with Nazis about a specific subject doesn't mean being Nazi. Nazis and Communist had many common parts, both two regime affected from Materialism and Darwinism. But both two was different than each other. So as result i didn't call you uneducated or Nazi.




> Look brah, materialism (in the sense that I assume you are using it) is not the dominant philosophy in the western world. Fully half of the materialists in my city, for example, moved to Edmonton last year. She's a nice girl. Anyway, you are putting words into my mouth (and the mouthes of my fellow materialists). I never said that humans are in any way "supreme", technology or no. In fact, I have been vigorously opposing this viewpoint for the entire thread, as I remember it.


As i see Materialism is dominant philosophy in western world. In a Capitalist world Materialism have to be dominant philosophy, because true goals of religion completely opposite of Capitalism, first of all while Capitalism is a waste economy religions bans to waste. In this point i would like to tell that Materialism can be in a religion too, so if a religion changed by worldy goals of politicians, clergy class or anything that religion is not a true religion anymore. So even some of the men who's lookin like a believer can have Materialist thoughts (without realizing it) at their background since they grown up in a Capitalist society.




> Back to main subject, human is supreme than animal not because we did nuclear plant. This point of view just fits to materialist-scientisist point of view of western people.


And this wasn't for you, read posts before my post.

Shortly 1-2 things more to clarify; wolf is my favorite animal and i appreciate wolves, wolf is the maybe most smart hunter of animal world, but as you know wolf is symbol of wild so i used those animals as metaphor.  :Smile:  And there's nothing wrong with sex. But i meant something different there...

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Nazis and Communist had many common parts, both two regime affected from Materialism and Darwinism.


Hitler was a Catholic (though obviously not a very good one) and Stalin was a Lamarkian. In other words: no.


> As i see Materialism is dominant philosophy in western world. In a Capitalist world Materialism have to be dominant philosophy, because true goals of religion completely opposite of Capitalism.


I'm very very very unclear on why you think capitalism and materialism are realated, unless you are using both definitions of the word 'materialism' simultaneously. The most _laissez-faire_ country in the world has only ever had protestants as leaders, with the exception of George Washington (probably a deist) and JFK (a Catholic). Some people (Max Weber) think that capitalism is an ideology born of protestantism. In fact, it seems to me that the most heavily atheistic western countries, such as Sweden and Iceland, tend to be the most socialist. I, by the way, am both a materialist and a socialist.

----------


## Turk

> Hitler was a Catholic (though obviously not a very good one) and Stalin was a Lamarkian. In other words: no.


And Marks was a Jewish while Nietzsche was a Protestant.




> I'm very very very unclear on why you think capitalism and materialism are realated, unless you are using both definitions of the word 'materialism' simultaneously. The most laissez-faire country in the world has only ever had protestants as leaders, with the exception of George Washington (probably a deist) and JFK (a Catholic). Some people (Max Weber) think that capitalism is an ideology born of protestantism. In fact, it seems to me that the most heavily atheistic western countries, such as Sweden and Iceland, tend to be the most socialist.


Materialism and Capitalism are completely related. Like two brothers. 

And yeah about Scandinavian countries. Sweden is not Socialist but Swedish state is a social state, but if there wouldn't be Volvo, Scania or Ikea there wouldn't be "most" social state of the world too. Think about it.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> And Marks was a Jewish while Nietzsche was a Protestant.


Marx and Neitzche renounced their religions, Hitler never did.


> Materialism and Capitalism are completely related. Like two brothers.


Why do you think that? Give some evidence. Adam Smith was hardly a materialist, but Karl Marx sure was.


> And yeah about Scandinavian countries. Sweden is not Socialist but Swedish state is a social state


Yes, Sweden has a democratic socialist government, one of the most left-wing in the world (before the last election, anyway). It runs mostly on private ownership, but there is a strong policy towards correcting social inequality. And many are atheists.

----------


## miss tenderness

> And I bet this makes absaloutly no sense to anyone but me...miss T maybe you can explain it better what Im trying to get into is the 'zeinat hayat el dunyah' and 'the sukhar lukm' ayahs


Opps! Sorry I did n't see this earlier: ,I'll be very very glad to help,the thing is: I did n't get what you want not I understand what you're reffering to by stating these ayyas will you please enlighten me more about thses two points in PM? Thanks for the confidence,night . 




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by “Virgil” 
> All that for nothing? What? Do you realize how you got people's passions up?
> 
> I guess we’ve made this thread what we want it to be, regardless of the opening poster’s intent. That, however, is the risk when participating in a thread whose purpose isn’t clearly communicated, I guess. I like the turn this thread has taken anyway.


 :Thumbs Up:  :Thumbs Up: :




> Your answers make me think you doesn't have enough knowledge about religion and history. And raising as Catholic doesn't mean understanding religion even Catholicism, everyone borns in a society and everyone raised in a culture, but raising in a Catholic or Muslim or Buddhist society doesn't mean you know/understand essence of those religions. And i don't have knowledge about specialities of your history class and it's level since everyone get education almost everyone has history classes in their education life and yeah i didn't say you don't know anything, i'm sure you know a few things i just said you don't know enough.


I hate to open or interfere in such useless arguments but Turk you can't judge people and understamates their standard of knowledge! I mean come on! 




> Virgil; i'm not sure about Christianity, because i didn't research about this question in Christianity, but in İslam human is supreme than angels, because according to İslam God give us ability to choose, free will.


Are all human above angels or just those who have great great faith and when they sin they ask forgiveness..I'll check on this point more inshallah.



> Satan rejected this because of his arrogance (though some İslamic scholars have different thoughts about Satan's manner, according to them Satan was so faithful and that's why didn't want to pray prostrate to man, and that was a "blind" faith, that make him forget obeying orders of God is true faith. An interesting claim. Although this kind of faith also includes arrogance, i think those scholars misses this weak part of their argument).


If Satan is that much faithful ,then how he disobey his Creator??if he is faithful ,as some scholars think, then he would've obeyed his God without arguing! Do those Thinkers know that he was fired from Heaven because of his disobedience. 
Basically, he did not obey coz of his arrogance, it’s stated in the holy Quran, so this subject is decided to me. Allah,swt, knows best.

We're getting hot in here,aren't we? :Biggrin:  ….

----------


## Nightshade

Hitler was catholic ? I thought he was jewish, ahh well we live and learn anyway onwards and upwards as they say.




> Im confused here, please help explicate for me. How can humans be the master race and yet not be superior? Maybe Im misunderstanding the definitions.


Ill admit my explaining could be clearer but the thing is I get it but not sur ei _can_ explain it.
ok here it goes, as a muslim I belive God created everything and when he created adam, he said to the angels that he was cretaing a khalifa- foller/inheritor ruler in stead of , you know the royalty theory where in the kings were appoited by God? well basically that idea but all the human race is. And basically as you would the angels objected on the grounds that wellthis new creature would destroy the beautiful earth and that they worshipped god coonstatly. Anyway so Man was given the earth and everything on it serves 'the human exsistance' in a bid to help us in this life that is a test and to show us the glory of God etc etc. Hence the master race.
But not the supirior race because although we ( and the Jin) have the one thing no other creation has ( the will to choose the worship of god) everything in the heavens and earth living and otherwise 'sabahs' (errr prays/worships/? somthing like that) so how could we be suprior? Its like comparing apples and oranges canyt be done were all special but differant.





> . Satan rejected this because of his arrogance (though some İslamic scholars have different thoughts about Satan's manner, *according to them Satan was so faithful and that's why didn't want to pray prostrate to man, and that was a "blind" faith, that make him forget obeying orders of God is true faith*. An interesting claim. Although this kind of faith also includes arrogance, i think those scholars misses this weak part of their argument). 
> .


Now thats one I havent heard, but what do they say about 'aba wastkbar wa kana min el kafireen?' pretty clear that I think.


 :Nod:

----------


## Nightshade

> Opps! Sorry I did n't see this earlier: ,I'll be very very glad to help,the thing is: I did n't get what you want not I understand what you're reffering to by stating these ayyas will you please enlighten me more about thses two points in PM? Thanks for the confidence,night .


thanks anyway Id forgotten Id posted that and had another stab at it in the post just below yours ( simultanious posting *sigh*



> :


ditto



> I hate to open or interfere in such useless arguments but Turk you can't judge people and understamates their standard of knowledge! I mean come on!


ditto




> If Satan is that much faithful ,then how he disobey his Creator??if he is faithful ,as some scholars think, then he would've obeyed his God without arguing! Do those Thinkers know that he was fired from Heaven because of his disobedience. 
> Basically, he did not obey coz of his arrogance, its stated in the holy Quran, so this subject is decided to me. Allah,swt, knows best.
> 
> We're getting hot in here,aren't we? .


and errr ditto :Biggrin:  :Biggrin: 




> Are all human above angels or just those who have great great faith and when they sin they ask forgiveness..I'll check on this point more inshallah.


yes esp. as the gift at the end is seeing God and the angels do that all the time plus the angels are like 3rd ( or is it even second?) on the list of things you have to be a Beliver ranking above prophets, books and fate good and evil.

----------


## Pensive

> Hi Pensive! 
> 
> What definition of 'special' are you using?
> 
> p.s. I agree, you're special.


Hey! 

By special, I mean "Of a distinct or particular kind or character."

Yes, I am special and so are you and every other person/amimal/bird/insect and even things.  :Tongue:  (My Computer is special. :Biggrin: )

----------


## Virgil

> Hey! 
> 
> By special, I mean "Of a distinct or particular kind or character."
> 
> Yes, I am special and so are you and every other person/amimal/bird/insect and even things.  (My Computer is special.)


Well, if everything is special, Pensy, then nothing is special.

----------


## Turk

> Marx and Neitzche renounced their religions, Hitler never did.


Does he need to do that? It's clear that he wasn't a Catholic. 




> Why do you think that? Give some evidence. Adam Smith was hardly a materialist, but Karl Marx sure was.


I don't want to explain this, because if we start this, this thread won't end.




> Yes, Sweden has a democratic socialist government, one of the most left-wing in the world (before the last election, anyway). It runs mostly on private ownership, but there is a strong policy towards correcting social inequality. And many are atheists.


Having Democratic Socialist government doesn't mean Sweden is constitutionaly Socialist. You already said "Socialist" at first, but Socialism is far different than Democratic Socialism. To me, it's just fits conservative bourgeouis socialism. Before everything if there's no proleterian dictatorship there's no "socialism". But as i said Sweden is maybe the most social state of the world. But that doesn't mean they'r socialist. Their economical system is completely Capitalist and they have a lot of global companies. With this kind of companies and 7-8 millions no growing population, all countries could be social as Sweden. Btw i would also like to said Scandinavian countries are very different than other parts of Europe and i think they never become true Christians. Today they have no moral and their lifestyle sucks and those countries also have highest suicide rates of Europe. I know a lil more (i've a friend who studies there) but subject is not Sweden. Shortly Sweden is not a good example for ideal state and society.




> Are all human above angels or just those who have great great faith and when they sin they ask forgiveness..I'll check on this point more inshallah.


In creation, in beginning, human is supreme than angels. Research as much as you can do.




> If Satan is that much faithful ,then how he disobey his Creator??if he is faithful ,as some scholars think, then he would've obeyed his God without arguing! Do those Thinkers know that he was fired from Heaven because of his disobedience.


I don't say it's my idea and i disagree this. But some thinkers have this idea (if i remember accurately Muhyiddin İbn-i Arabi is one of them too). But obviously those thinkers were more educated about İslam than us. There can be many different comments, but all in they all defended unity (Tevhid).




> Hitler was catholic ? I thought he was jewish, ahh well we live and learn anyway onwards and upwards as they say.


Hitler's mother worked as servant for a Jewish family in Vien. That's why some people claims Hitler was a Jewish, in fact this Jewish family keep sending money to Hitler's mom when she return to her village too. But that doesn't mean Hitler was a Jewish. His father is Alois Hitler, a German (but probly they had a little Czech blood in their veins) and Hitler doesn't have racial specialities of Jews too. This will be off topic, so i don't want to tell more about it but i want to say that Hitler was the probly one of most charismatic 2-3 leaders of 20. century and he was a true genius, if he had grown up in a better society, family, time etc. he could be a much different.

----------


## miss tenderness

> In creation, in beginning, human is supreme than angels. Research as much as you can do.


I will absouletly do. This point caught me interest  :Wink: 


I don't say it's my idea and i disagree this. But some thinkers have this idea (if i remember accurately Muhyiddin İbn-i Arabi is one of them too). But obviously those thinkers were more educated about İslam than us. There can be many different comments, but all in they all defended unity (Tevhid).

[/QUOTE]

No need to be angery ,Turk. I've n't said that it's u who come up with this unacceptable idea,have I? I was just defending my belief. It' nt u whom I disagreed with. I disagreed with those thinkers.I know u mainly transfered their theories.Please read carefully my posts, it really upsets me when someone misunderstand my intentions :Bawling:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Does he need to do that? It's clear that he wasn't a Catholic.


Not to hear him speak it isn't. He frequently refenced God and how the aryans are the race chosen to carry out God's work (an idea that is not original with him, by the way). Bottom line, if he was a materialist, he sure didn't act like it.


> I don't want to explain this, because if we start this, this thread won't end.


Are you in some kind of hurry? As a materialist who is also a rabid anti-capitalist, I would love to hear this.


> Having Democratic Socialist government doesn't mean Sweden is constitutionaly Socialist. You already said "Socialist" at first, but Socialism is far different than Democratic Socialism.


Socialism is different than a certain kind of socialism?


> Before everything if there's no proleterian dictatorship there's no "socialism".


Marx isn't the first and last word on socialism, friend, he was just a very influential socialist. From my dictionary:


> The term 'socialism' has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy


I can't see how you can continue to defend your position that there is no socialism in Sweden when you keep using the terms "socialism" "social" and "socialist" to describe it.


> Today they have no moral and their lifestyle sucks


Ok, now all materialists and Swedes hate you. Any other masses you'd like to offend, or are you done?


> Shortly Sweden is not a good example for ideal state and society.


Who said it is? I'm simply refuting your suggestion that atheism and capitalism are somehow tied in with each other.


> I want to say that Hitler was the probly one of most charismatic 2-3 leaders of 20. century and he was a true genius, if he had grown up in a better society, family, time etc. he could be a much different.


He would have made a brilliant actor.

----------


## Turk

I'm not angry at you Miss Tenderness. I just clarified that it's not my thought.

And Cuppajoe, you really started to make just demogogy. If i say something i don't say it just sake of saying. I know Hitler references God many times, i've read his book Mein Kampf, but he's clearly much far than Catholicism or any religion. And yeah Socialism is different than a certain kind of Socialism and i've never read any Socialist who claims it's possible that Capitalism and Socialism can work together, even if you don't accept ideas of Karl Marks Sweden is still not Socialist. In fact Sweden has purely Capitalist economy. Democratic Socialists and leftists are very strong in almost all countries of Europe. Isn't Tony Blair leader of Worker Party? You mixing social state and Socialism to each other. At last i would like to say; if anyone hates me it's not my problem, i don't hate anyone since my life is too short to hate someone.

----------


## Scheherazade

The topic of this thread is 'Are humans special or are we nothing more the mere rabbits?' Please start new threads on other topics you would like to discuss.

Further off topic / personal posts are likely to be deleted.

----------


## Kareniyna

> As a materialist who is also a rabid anti-capitalist, I would love to hear this.


(I'm new kid on the block, mind if I jump in? I've followed this thread with interest)
could you define "materialist" for me? in the sense that you consider yourself to be one? How does it relate to being anti-capitalist as well?

----------


## Chava

Did anyone mention the similarity of DNA between a CHimp and a human? I beleive it to be about 98%

So much for a massive difference... 

not to mention, humans have the same amount of hair as a chimp... frightening thought really

----------


## ShoutGrace

> Did anyone mention the similarity of DNA between a CHimp and a human? I beleive it to be about 98%
> 
> So much for a massive difference...


Nobody may have mentioned it specifically, but it has been implied. It is a fact that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of their DNA. What _I_ find interesting is how we share so much DNA, and yet are so tremendously (massively), definitively different.

Humans also share 75% of our DNA with dogs (some humans more than others) and 33% of our DNA with daffodils. Is there more than a 70% difference between daffodils and human beings?

How much DNA is in a thought? In a (theoretical) soul?

DNA is one attribute by which to measure an organism. There are many others, and by those presented so far, it is clear that human beings are indeed special and unique when compared to the rest of life on this planet.

----------


## Turk

You answered it before me ShoutGrace. We also share %75 DNA similarity with a kind of worm, so we are just %25 different than a worm? In fact even one change at DNA and Protein structure creates humongous differences. So %75, %98 or even %99 similarity doesn't proves anything. But i think this is off topic. Last three messages (including mine) should transfer to another topic.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> You answered it before me ShoutGrace. We also share %75 DNA similarity with a kind of worm, so we are just %25 different than a worm?


It's worth bearing in mind that there are large sectors of DNA that don't actually code for any proteins. Of the 75% we share with a worm, large sectors are probably useless. "Percent difference" isn't really a concept that can be used to compare two objects unless both of them are numbers.


> But i think this is off topic.


Naw, the topic has to do with why human beings are different from other animals. We're right on it.

----------


## Scorpio

look at the impact of man on the environment and look at the impact of animals on the environment then ask yourself who really understands life
man is superior only in his arrogance towards other animals

----------


## miss tenderness

> not to mention, humans have the same amount of hair as a chimp... frightening thought really


Why dear?!as if you're going to wake up one morning and find yourself transformed to a chimp! I'm telling you" This fact wont change the other fact,which is we are not rabbit or chimps ".

----------


## Turk

DNA percents doesn't prove anything since only %0,1 diference is enough to be completely different kind. Especially saying "we have same amount of hair as a chimp" as a prove of this subject is even funny.

----------


## Dimitra

> DNA percents doesn't prove anything since only %0,1 diference is enough to be completely different kind. Especially saying "we have same amount of hair as a chimp" as a prove of this subject is even funny.



I disagree.It proves how close relatives we are with those species..in such a degree that in fact many scientists now want to include in the homo family,the bonobo and the trogoglydes chimp ..or alter our whole family name as to fit the lates discoveries better..but they don't because it woudl cause such great problems with taxinomy and zoology.Our species with the one of the bonobo chimp have separated only 500000 years before..now in such a small time has something so radical and magnificent happen that will separate us with the rest of the animal kingdom and put us in a league of our own??

----------


## Turk

Are they relative too?

----------


## Scheherazade

> Are they relative too?


The first one looks rather like my maternal uncle, come to think of it!

----------


## Turk

Well i also think they are rleative to each other too, look people, they both green.

----------


## ShoutGrace

> now in such a small time has something so radical and magnificent happen that will separate us with the rest of the animal kingdom and put us in a league of our own??


The above is rather lacking clarity, but if it is indeed a question, then the answer is simply 'yes.'

----------


## Virgil

> Virgil; i'm not sure about Christianity, because i didn't research about this question in Christianity, but in İslam human is supreme than angels, because according to İslam God give us ability to choose, free will. But angels doesn't have free will that's why he ordered angels to prostrate in front of human and show him respect you know the last part i think. Satan rejected this because of his arrogance (though some İslamic scholars have different thoughts about Satan's manner, according to them Satan was so faithful and that's why didn't want to pray prostrate to man, and that was a "blind" faith, that make him forget obeying orders of God is true faith. An interesting claim. Although this kind of faith also includes arrogance, i think those scholars misses this weak part of their argument).


Oh that's interesting. I didn't realize there was that difference between Christianity and Islam on that.

----------


## Virgil

> The first one looks rather like my maternal uncle, come to think of it!


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  That was funny!

----------


## miss tenderness

> Oh that's interesting. I didn't realize there was that difference between Christianity and Islam on that.



well, actually ,as a start, angels are better than Humans. It's the 2nd thing a Muslim have(must)believe in after the 1st one>>Allah,swt. That tells about their importance in Islam. I dearly love Gebrail, the most grand angel who was sent to Prophet Mohammad with the meesage of Islam,I love thre rest too,whether they are named to us or not. Great respect is paid to him ,Gebrial,and other angels in the holy Quran. However,in the day of Judgement, the faithful person who never makes sins(or more accurately,commit but regret and ask 4 forgivness),is better,coz he is human and was able to reach a high level . Angels can't but obey,they have no choice. We,humans,have choice and such a person choose not to go astray :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Turk

Where did you read it m.tenderness? A human is always supreme than an angel, unless he betray his creation. So a human is supreme than angel in beginning. Actually even asking this question is somewhat silly by itself; because angels are like machines. They have no free will. Remember who compared himself to man; Satan. And i don't love any angels, how can you love an angel? It doesn't have any meaning.

----------


## miss tenderness

Turk,if you are a Muslim,then you must have faith in them,it's the 2nd pillar of Iman after believing in Allah. Allah,swt, says inthe holy Quran"whomever is an enemy of Allah and His angels andGabrail, Michal(name of an angel),then God is an enemy of those who are unbelievable"my translation 4 the holy text.
They are not machines(astaghfir Allah,I ask his forgiveness)They are God'creation,He created them from Light,and for a wisdom He ,subhanhu wa ta'ala knows. How can you talk about them like this?Turk!!how can you??do not compare those unsinful angels to Satan. He hasn't obeyed His God. They DO everyday and every moment. I love them because Allah loves them,proofs:>>read the holy Quran and all the verses of praising them.Ever heard of this ayah(verse)"nay,those are an honorable slaves of God". Allah knows best.
I believe in Allah,His angels,His books,His messengers,the day of judgment,and the fate>>>these are the sixth pillar of Islams,no one can be a Muslim eccept if he accepts them and believe in them(notice that angels are the 2nd??is it because they are machines!!!!!!)??Allah Knows better.

----------


## Turk

I believe angels of course. I said how can i love an angel?

And i didn't say they are machines, i said they are "like" machines, it's easy to see resemblance i think.

And i didn't compare angels to Satan. I said SATAN WAS THE ONE WHO THOUGHT HE'S SUPREME THAN HUMAN. 

I read Qur'an. But more importantly i understand it. I just asked "how can you love an angel?". Saying i love'em cuz Allah loves em is not the answer of my question.

----------


## miss tenderness

> Where did you read it m.tenderness? A human is always supreme than an angel, unless he betray his creation. So a human is supreme than angel in beginning. Actually even asking this question is somewhat silly by itself; because angels are like machines. They have no free will. Remember who compared himself to man; Satan. And i don't love any angels, how can you love an angel? It doesn't have any meaning.


the way you put Satin matter is just a way of trying to redicule the angels,dnt you think?it's like saying:"look what one of them did"!


IT'S AN ANSWER,I LOVE THEM COZ THEY ARE A BASIC OF My RELIGION>>>isn 't this an enough reason??!Even if you the machine matter is just a matter of comparison,it's not proper at all. those ceatures have great great respect in out religion,you should've showed even a bit.
I'm honored to stand here and defend those grand angels :Smile:  :Banana: 

thanks for challanging my understanding for the holy Quran,a person who says why should we love them,is defintely understands our God purpose and orders! :Tongue:  however,I will never under any cirumstances underestame any Muslim's understanding of the holy book nor I'm going to give a judgment on that. who knows myabe they are better than me. It's not a good thing to say to any of my brothers and sisters,so thanks for judging my understanding.

----------


## Scheherazade

Just a quick note:


> *satin* 
> noun [U]
> 
> a type of cloth, sometimes made of silk, which is smooth and shiny on one side but not on the other:
> a cream satin dress





> *Satan*  
> noun [U] FORMAL
> 
> the name used by Christians and Jews for the Devil (= a powerful evil force and the enemy of God)


(Both definitions are from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/)

----------


## miss tenderness

:Biggrin: ,Scher!
I have the google spelling check toolbar, but I dnt have time to use it!you get the meaning anyway!

----------


## jon1jt

I think Aristotle sums it up quite nicely about the difference between humans and the rest of the world:

"All men by nature desire to know. An example of this is the delight that we take in our senses." -First sentence of Metaphysics


the poster mentions rabbits. I like rabbits, they're cute.

----------


## Virgil

> I think Aristotle sums it up quite nicely about the difference between humans and the rest of the world:
> 
> "All men by nature desire to know. An example of this is the delight that we take in our senses." -First sentence of Metaphysics
> 
> 
> the poster mentions rabbits. I like rabbits, they're cute.


Thanks for that quote Jon. I was wondering what Aristotle would or has said on the subject, and while I did a quick google on it I didn't find anything significant. I think rabbits are cute too. iIve got a few relatives who find them tasty.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Nightshade

> IT'S AN ANSWER,I LOVE THEM COZ THEY ARE A BASIC OF My RELIGION>>>


not saying I disagree with you exactly but does that mean you love fate good and evil?

and how can humans more supreme which by the way is the not the word any of us mean I dont think I think the word we are looking for or rather phrase is 'better loved in the eyes of God' because corect me if Im wrong but I was under the impression supreme in the religious context is linked to all powerfull and holiness and may I just say there is no way that humans are more holy that the angels.

Having said that angels are not like humans in that they CANNOT disobey like turk said on the other hand they are capable of thought which a machine isnt. As demonstrated in the beging of suurat el baquarah when the angels ask God why he would create such a destructive creature as man, when he had them.
Then again Satan who is another creature with free will was loved more than the angels _because of_ his independet choice to love and obey God, and siding with the angels in the great Jjin wars, so prehaps in some ways we are better than angels except all the angels already reside and all alwasy will in heaven and yet only 1/7th of the people who call themselves muslims will ever see heaven.

At the sametime Im not sure you can even say you/I/ whoever as a phrase love god becasue surly love of God is love of yourself??
A sheik ( cant rember who but hes dead allah yarhumuh) said that if only more people were truly selfish then there would be more good people in the world. To clarify that he meant iif people were just so selfish and greedy and desirous of getting a big present at the end then everyone would be good so they got it.

----------


## miss tenderness

> not saying I disagree with you exactly but does that mean you love fate good and evil?


angels are not like fate. I mean angels have names and cetain duties that they are given. They _to some extent close to human,fate actually is not._I I feel that this comparison is not fair to them,I mean they tottaly represent something very very didffrent than fate.

you know,Night,being satisfied with your fate is what having faith in fate means.So we have to be satisied and accept our faith(and it's just natural that u hate the bad conditions,if not so you're not a normal human,so it's okay to hate it inside you but trying to change it for the better ,having peace insid you and not trying to coimmit suicid and other unacceptable acts)Ever heard of this hadeeth(all faithfuls' matter is good, if bad befallen him,he'll be patiant and thank God (this is good for him)and if good befallen him he thanks God (this is good for him).in other words: love your faith ,be satisfied with it. So if I have faith in God and I know that He's the one who chooses how my fate goes,then I have to love my fate too.
I'm not saying that I do be happy always with my bad fate ,nah,I just know it's from Him and I have to accept it.
There are other haddeth(ghdsi)says: (do not swear at(or curse)time,because it's Me)means God is the one who makes our fate and changes it.It's all in His hands.
hope good fate for us all :Nod:

----------


## Nightshade

yes but I am satisfied and except it doesnt mean love it, bt I guess I see what you mean. But not all the angels have names you know, I mea think about it you go through atleast 4 angels a day mind you if you get all your prayers in in the right times you do techniically 'selim allayhum' 
if you see what I mean?
 :Biggrin:

----------


## miss tenderness

dunno exactly,Night,if some of them do not have names. But I would go with(all of them have names).remmebr the story when Allah,swt,created Adam and told him the angels names and then he asked them "what are your names"they replied"Glory is for u,God,we do not know unless You tell us"so God ordered Adam to tell them their names. It's all in the Quran,maybe surat albaghara,not sure,. consequently, They have names...not sure if some don't though.

selim alykum,do u mean in the tashahud?
Gosh ,I feel like domineering this thread!

----------


## Nightshade

dominating not domineering :Biggrin: , and no Imean when you selm at the end you are selming to _ your_ two angels of the hour arent you ?  :Confused:  
I thought the tashhud you selm to all the the belivers before and after us ??? 

which reminds me when excatly are you suposed to move your finger??

----------


## miss tenderness

lol

yes,tashahud you salim on the believers, and dunno about salim on angels on the last tasleem.

you move ur finger hwen saying(ashhadu an lailaha illaallah wa ashuadu ana mohammmadan rasoolallah,allahoma sali ala Mohammad wa ala alli Mohammad)two places of moving finger :Smile:

----------


## Nightshade

only then?
not whenever you say allahoma??
thanks!! :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:

----------


## Dr Eep

Ahem.....It is amazing; Humans and animals are the same, see..... 
1) Just kiss a frog and you'll have a prince!
2) Sheeez. almost all known snakes now have law degrees!
3) Dictators of impoverished 3rd world countries who take every resource unto themselves = pigs!
4) The apes a chattering away in their fickle cages = parliment members.
5) The meekness yet directionless chaos of blind mice = most of the worlds clergy today.

See - we is the same darn thing mama!

----------


## jon1jt

> Thanks for that quote Jon. I was wondering what Aristotle would or has said on the subject, and while I did a quick google on it I didn't find anything significant. I think rabbits are cute too. iIve got a few relatives who find them tasty.


Virg, you gotta tell those relatives to leave those poor wabbits alone!!!!

----------


## amanda_isabel

> I wonder if man is something special in this world or are we just merely as special as rabbits or any other animal for that. What I am saying, is man special in the way are we able to truely concieve the meaning of life or are we just ignorant for thinking that we can. The rabbit I am talking about is the simpale creature that goes through life wanting nothing more then to reporduce and just go through life eating and having sex eating and having sex. No questions about life no thoughts or evening careing to think about itor better yet they know that they have no ablilty to understand the conseption of life so why insult who ever started it by thinking they can. So what are we, are we special by haveing the ability to undestand life or are we stupid for even thinking we can are we jsut as important as rabbits.


you may have a point here, hitchhiker. there are important points here (sorry if this might sound repetitive, i didn't read the other posts..). but they all come from perception. philosophically, yes, we may be nothing more than rabbits.. but then again, what separates humans from other animals is intelligence, as other creatures rely on instinct. w can study the world around us; we're the only creatures who can. that said, are we special? but, going baack to your question, are we special by having thr ability to understand life?

do we understand life? why is it that that to this very day we ask ourselves what the purpose of our existence is? the fact is, we don't understand life. but we're not stupid to think we can, because curiosity is innate. 

not sure if i made my points, my brain is kinda out of it today.. anyway, we're not rabbits, rabbits who do nothing but reproduce and eat. but at the samt time, we also aren;t those special creatures who can fully comprehend what there is around us, so i guess mankind is somewhere in between--unless personal beleifs say otherwise.

----------


## miss tenderness

> only then?
> not whenever you say allahoma??
> thanks!!


Right, I've heard that you move it in these three cases:
1.when you say the shahada.
2.allahuma Sali. ..wa a'la aali Mohammada.
3.wa barik 'ala Mohammad .
Briefly,shahada and the places of dua (allahuma Sali wa barik).

----------


## Virgil

You know I think reading William Falkner's Nobel Prize acceptance speech would be appropriate in this thread. Here is what I think is the key section of his speech.




> I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal because he will endure: that when the last ding-dong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking. I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet's voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.


Man is special for these very reasons, and Faulkner says it way more elegantly than I can. 

You can read the entire speech here: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/l...er-speech.html

----------


## miss tenderness

interesting articl,Virg. Thanks.
it's good to see some links that enriches our topic.

----------

